Don't you get it?! Male procedures are all covered...no problem. Even little pills to keep their "friend" at attention. Women are the ones that want taxpayers to help prevent them from having 15 babies they can't afford nor want, and THEY are the ones that want to infringe on religious freedoms!!

Sarcasm...off

On another note, in fairness millions of Christians have the procedure.

Marc, nice try, but....Muslims are also circumcised.

The point still stands though, it is required of Muslims and Jews. The only other group of people who routinely practice it are Americans and that happened because of pervasive Christian/religious interference on the medical industry, they wanted a way to keep kids from masturbating and thought circumcision was the answer. Now we are constantly inundated with studies that attempt to prove the efficacy of circumcision so that people can justify their continued barbaric butchery of their sons.

I don't just think insurance should not cover the procedure, I think the procedure should be banned for anyone under the age of 18, except for reasons of medical necessity.

The point still stands though

Yuk yuk yuk, pun intended?

What kind of pediatrician would even consider the sexual mutuilation of children to support the religious pedophiles? These Abrahamists are only seeking legitimacy to avoid being charged with child molestation. These freaks attempt to find any reason, real or imagined, to protect their twisted up to 3,000+ year old religious halucinations. WHY WOULD ANYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND MUTILATE THEIR CHILDREN IN THIS WAY FOR THESE KINDS OF RELIGIOUS BASED REASONS?

Correction. 99.9% of health insurance policies DO NOT cover ED pills like Viagra. Why do people keep throwing that into discussions?

This "study", along with most of the comments, is a crock. I seriously doubt there is any causal link here. It is far more likely that this is nothing more than a statistical anomaly based on the group of files chosen for this paper study. The fact that this garbage is even being published should embarrass the medical community as well as the journal that published it. Worthless paper studies like these that draw conclusions based on statistics from one group where there is no plausible causal link should be thrown in the trash where they belong, not published or given any credence.

"religion is evil," "religious freak are pedophiles!"

Just because circumcision is in the bible, koran and torah, you think it's all about religion. Did any of you actually read this story, or medical journals for that matter?

Look up "smegma" and do some research. Men who are circumcised have 0 smegma that can get infected and could potentially house STDs, or even more rapidly infect the prostate causing acceleration of cancer growth. This story has some merit to it.

And, by the way, HOW is it "mutilation?" (it's spelled m-u-t-i-l-a-t-i-o-n, by the way). Because it's in holy texts that atheists can't stand the existence of? Get off the anti-religious high horse and look up scientific medical journals. The benefits of circumcision are in all the top medical journals. Do some research, you'll be amazed at what you find.

There was a forum a couple of days ago consisting of a panel of doctors. When the subject turned to circumcision, they agreed unanimously (and listed many reasons) that it should be performed. Their only further comment was that it should be performed as soon as possible after birth.

If the anti-religious zealots are against circumcision, then they shouldn't have one. No one really cares.

How come no one is advocating the routine radical mastectomies for girls? It would prevent over a quarter million cases of breast cancer a year. Unlike routine circumcision, it would save 10s of thousands of lives a year.

But we can't talk about about that, because it would be mutilation.

There are numerous studies that find that those that are circumcised have less risk for infections, penile cancer, risk of aquiring HIV, and now prostate cancer.

Circumcisions are now even easier to get by different methods. If you want to be healthier then get circumcised.

@ Nutgrape.

Ridiculous comparison. A radical mastectomy is an incredibly invasive procedure that literally removes the mammary glands from the body. It's far more than removing a piece of unnecessary skin.

Look up "smegma" and do some research.

Someone told to look up smegma a couple years ago. Vomit in my mouth. Colloquially, we just call it "Fromunda Cheese".

My wife and I will soon be having our first son. He will be circumcised. I am a nurse and I have witnessed circumcisions first hand and I know how barbaric they look. I am not advocating circumcision for everyone. I don't think it should be a "religious decision." However, as a nurse, I have dealt with hundreds of foreskin infections. I have seen people lose a good portion of their penis because of it. Admittedly, with good hygiene this should never happen. There are risks associated with either approach and it's neither good nor bad. In my opinion, the risks of NOT getting circumcised are greater.

More physician nonsense "research."

""These data suggest a biologically plausible mechanism through which circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer," said study researcher Dr. Jonathan Wright, an assistant professor of urology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He noted that the study was observational; it did not show a cause-and-effect link."

If the study "did not show a cause-and-effect link" it did not "suggest a plausible mechanism, through whichy circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer." Period. That is absolutely bad logic. Only a physician "researcher" with no training or skills at this sourt of research would even suggest such a thing. No PhD researcher would.

These people just sit and run through old data looking for correlations. They have zero idea of what they are doing and it shows badly. They know the bare basics of SPSS or SAS and not a thing more. Since they had no formal training in statistical analysis, they miss that we have known for around 3500 years that "corelation does not mean causation."

This sort of thing does NOT mean that circumcision in any way prevents prostate cancer. In fact the base pathology would be little different between circumcision and keeping nails trimmed. It certainly does not show a lingage between circumscision and prostate cancer. It could be very easily that men who are circumcized are from families where a healthier lifestyle is prevalent.

What it MIGHT point to is the possibility that a virus might be the trigger element for prostate cancer, or some percentage of prostate cancers. This would be similar to the relationship between HPV and cervical cancer. But as yet the virus or other contributing factor is unknown. The circumcision itself is obviously not directly involved.

Cancer research took an ugly turn when Nixon started the "War on Cancer" which we apparently lost. At the time, it was suspected that viruses and other environmental causes were responsible for a long of cancers. The approach them was called "systemic" and can be incredibly complex. But unfortunately the very complexity of the systemic approach to cancer froze most physicians out of all cancer research since they simply did not have adequate skills. As a result the AMA led a massive effort to move all cancer research from a "systemic" model to a "cellular" model. As an analogy, of you were studying traffic problems (the cancer) it would make sense to look at traffic flows and the timing of lights and time of day (the systemic approach) but physicians simplified it by looking at individual cars (cells.) As a result billions of dollars of cancer research funds have been waster looking where the light was better than where the wallet was lost, as the old joke goes.

When you see this sort of crap research done by a physician in a medical school, you can safely disregard it. This sort of thing is bread-and-butter for science writers, but is essentially not only wirthless but is actually seriously misleading. And some of the absolutely worst research in the world is currently coming out of the urology field which is collapsing as people are figuring out that urologists have created a "reliable revenue stream" out of a junk lab test, the PSA, and serious and dangerous overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.

I am currently in the middle of a PSA-induced nightmare and the more research I do the less respect I have for any urologist. My immediate reaction to this one is that he knows exactly how much additional money he might make if more boys were selected for circumcisions.

Regular washing of your tally-whacker works much better than circumcision.

But for the hygiene and water deficient desert dwelling tribes it was a clever solution.

Cut the whole thing off and 99% of all crimes on planet Earth would be eliminated, along with male stupidity and the cancer and HIV risks.

Circumcision is a procedure desperately looking for a reason.

Chris 1.15

It seems you're looking for every and any reason, real or imagined, to discredit the practice of circumcision, even to the point of dismissing scientific evidence and physican's recommendations. Who exactly are you trying to convince? Perhaps yourself?

The point is that if you don't want to have a circumcision or you don't want your child to have one, then don't. It's that simple.

Who sponsored this study? Doctors-Who-Need-Their-Next-Boat-Payment? Pseudo science at it's worst!!

littlechanges: "Cut the whole thing off and 99% of all crimes on planet Earth would be eliminated, along with male stupidity and the cancer and HIV risks."

That would eliminate humanity as well, but perhaps that is just as well, since we have not been good stewards of this planet.

Circumcising was started by the Jewish because they believe God told them to do it as an identifier that they were Jewish. Since it is not a harmful practice like murder, incest, rape, or outright mutiliatioin - leave it alone.

There are several reasons why Christians do it.

1) One of the apostles thought that Christians should follow Jewish Law - Jesus said no such thing. But once someone in authority says to do something, many people follow and it is very difficult to get the incorrect teaching corrected.

2) Jewish Christians still practice Circumcision. If they don't then they have no ministry with their own people, a lot of non-Jewish Christians also do so, for the same reason.

3) There have been a number of studies over the years that has shown circumcision to be more healthful. That is why insurance companies will pay for it. Insurance companies do nothing unless there is statistics or laws saying things should be done or not done.

The anti-masturbation line is purely a liberal smear - absolutely nobody is that ignorant - except those who are desperately trying to find a reason to not follow Christianity.

BTW: the anti-masturbation reason is true for female circumcision - and it is an outrage to do it.

Gotta love the anti-science folks here.

Penile cancer rate drops by 80%. Risk of contracting HIV falls 60%, now prostate cancer rates. All are benefits of circumcision.

You sound like cigarette companies, "you haven't shown a direct cause and effect", well we all knew that it caused cancer and it turns out it does.

There are umpteen (developed) countries where circumcision is not the norm. Does that mean that prostrate cancer is more prevalent there? Before publishing this half-assed research, let's take this a step further and do some meaningful comparisons.

@Wet Willy,

My post had little to do with circumcision, but rather with absurd statements pretending to be "scientific" research. And, as Ciocero asked, "Cio bono?" Who benefits? The primary beneficiary from circumcisions are still those who do them not those who receive them.

Try this as one link to read:

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=8&id=73

I repeat, there had been NO peer-reviewed valid scientific comparitive studies of circumsized and non-circumsized outcomes. Period. It is all speculation using surrogate endpoint analysis which is used only in the medical industry. (If A=B and B=C then A=C is surrogate endpoint analysis and is fatally flawed logic.)

To oppose this sort of thing (we found a solid correlation, but there is no cause and effect) is not anti-science. In fact it is just the opposite. Science looks for cause-and-effect. Pseudo-science looks for correlations and calls them causal. This is much like saying that since 100% of bank robbers wear shoes, so requiring all bank customers to remove the shoes would reduce bank robberies by 15%. In reality, such a requirement might actually reduce bank robberies because of the inconvenience to the robbers, but it would still not be a valid cause-and-effect. Shoes would not be a cause of bank robberies, no matter how much you stretched it.

We are in a point when R&D money, as a percentage of the GDP, is at the lowest it has been since before WWI (essentially before the "Scientific Revolution.) Taxpayer money for resarch is at an all-time low. Great ideas and worthwhile research is being let slide because there simply is not the money to fund it. Every time you get some pseudo-science like this, it is stealing taxpayer money from worthwhile research that could save lives or improve quality of life. Junk science is becoming more and more of a problem as taxpayer funds for research grants diminish.

Pseudo-science (and corruption) in the for-profit medical industry are a reason why 30% of all new drugs approved by the FDA perform no better than a placebo. It is a reason why Vioxx was allowed on the market even though over 40 "additional" people had fatal strokes or heart attacks during testing, but none showed up in the two trials that were submitted for the drug's approval. Physicians have absolutely no training in designing, conducting, or analyzing clinical trials, let alone analysing metadata. I could teach anyone on here in 15 minutes how to do SPSS or SAS analysis of existing data. I could show you what numbers to look for to see if you found correlations. In short, I could easily train you to do what this physician did. You would come up with all sort of correlations because they do actually exist.

But we have known for 3500 years that finding correlations are only a very preliminary step to finding causal relationships. To find a correlation and then assume that you have found a cause-and-effect is just a display of lack of scientific rigor. Unless this physician can actually show a plausible mechanism by which circumscision prevents prostate cancer, he has absolutely nothing scientific to show. He states that there is a correlation, goes on to suppose that circumcision somehow prevents prostate cancer, proposes NO mechanism by which this might happen, and then, with his bald face hanging out, declares that there is no cause-and-effect. If there is no cause-and-effect, there is no "there" to his study.

@Eric,

There is no solid evidence to support drops in penile cancer, HIV, and prostate cancer from circumcision. This is just "estimates" based on anecdotal evidence. Penile cancer is so rare, for example, that the Rule of Small Numbers pretty much makes it impossible to state much of anything about its rates, causes, or changes in occurence.

While the cigarette companies did indeed dispute that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between smoking and lung cancer, they did not dispute the causation overall. They disputed it in individual cases. There is a huge amount of difference between the cause of a general occurrance and the cause of a specific occurrence, the later being much harder in most cases to prove.

Its apparently "half-assed" because you don't agree with its conclusions.

A forskin is not a breast so it's removal is far less traumatic on a whole host of levels. Duh.

I think getting one's wisdom teeth removed is a heinous act of mutilation perpetrated on an unsuspecting and innocent youth. Sure wisdom teeth aren't necessary. Sure wisdom teeth can cause problems but how does that make it anybody's right to remove them?! Let the child grow up and make that decision on their own when it will cost more, is more painful and they no longer have the powerful healing abilities of their youth.

However, as a nurse, I have dealt with hundreds of foreskin infections. I have seen people lose a good portion of their penis because of it.

Sold! Circumcision is good. End of debate.

chris,

there are tons of good studies, mostly african cohorts, that have shown a benefit to circumcision. I'll post, or you can research them yourself if you are interested

as an aside, i don't think you know as much about research as you think. You want people to launch a massively expensive, decades long prospective trial into a causal link between prostate cancer and circumcision without doing a quick observational retrospective study to see if there is even a potential link? Boy, am I glad you are not in charge of NIH dollars...

The article didn't say that there was no connection, just that no causal relationship has yet been proven.

Plus, it's just more attractive.

What woman can resist 10% off??

What woman can resist 10% off??

Better than a half-rolled tube sock.

Actually Chris, you've pointed to a major reason overlooked by the medical researchers. I've heard that "exercising the penis" reduces the risk of prostate problems. It would then reason that a more attractive penis might lead to more exercise. Also, with the glans always exposed there would be more arrousal and that would promote more self-exercise. ("Exercising without a spotter?")

It is rather disgusting to think that a child's sexual organ would be ritualistically altered for appearance. Especially when it is neither looked at or discussed in polite society. The foreskin is a functional part of the male body. It physically protects the glans and urethral opening. Circumcised infants frequently suffer from meatal stenosis (a narrowing of the urethral opening). Because the foreskin no longer protects the meatus, ammonia formed from urine in wet diapers irritates and inflames the exposed urethral opening.

This is just another bogus study to justify ritual mutilation.

This is just another bogus study to justify ritual mutilation.

Or, it is bogus because you don't agree with the results? If you can show that it is bogus, please detail the methodological errors.

Barry, based on the 'study', "...the highest rates of prostate cancer were found in men who were circumcised as adults." In the study, these circumcised individuals were grouped with the uncircumcised individuals. That methodologically makes no sense. Circumcision is a profitable medical procedure, practiced primarily on unwilling infants. The advocates keep looking for justification and yet men in primarily uncircumcised countries (Sweden, Norway, etc.) just do fine.

I second Barry. Where's the beef? Not to mention that when we walked around on all fours or bipedally across the savannas in the buff, a foreskin might have been a handy thing in a protective sense, lowering rates of male reproductive problems, etc. but now that we are always wearing something a foreskin is either completely ineffectual or quite possibly even a problem.

dale,

In the study, these circumcised individuals were grouped with the uncircumcised individuals

Incorrect. They were grouped seperately

Not only that, there is a lot of good data, better than this study, supporting circumcision. If you like, i can post it

eric,

There is no good data to support circumcision. I took the time to read the big African HIV/AIDS study. (Not the conclusions, rather I read the entire study protocol and raw data results.) There is good reason why researchers have been unable to duplicate the results in the U.S. (The 'benefit' in the study of circumcision preventing AIDS disappeared as the circumcision wound healed!)

There is no logical reason why one group of circumcised men were grouped with uncircumcised men unless the intent of the researcher was to justify infant circumcision.

"One concern Freedman expressed about the new study was that the highest rates of prostate cancer were found in men who were circumcised as adults.

While this was the smallest group of men in the study, and therefore most likely to have the results skewed by chance, he said that the inclusion of these men with others who were not circumcised may have made the benefit of circumcision seem larger than it actually is."

Circumcision is a ritualistic surgery searching for a rational justification. About 100 U.S. children die from 'routine' infant circumcision each year. Children are occasionally are sufficiently mutilated as to lose their penis. Complications later in life are rarely reported. There is little or no money to study the benefits of not being circumcised. It doesn't take much of a web search to find that there is no correlation between a country's circumcision rate and its male cancer rate.

The 'benefit' in the study of circumcision preventing AIDS disappeared as the circumcision wound healed!)

Thats a completely false statement. The benefits persist into adulthood. In fact, that's when the benefits become apparent...unless you think there is an epidemic of infant to infant spread of HIV and other STD's...

the inclusion of these men with others who were not circumcised

Since the theory of the paper was that repeated STD's and other causes of inflammation related to the foreskin had already occured, then it would make more sense to classify them as "uncircumcised". It is almost like doing a per-protocol analysis compared to an intention to treat. Both have advantages and disadvantages

About 100 U.S. children die from 'routine' infant circumcision each year

Citation please. Anyway, even if true, that's out of 1.5 MILLION circumcisions performed every year. A 0.007% fatal rate. The evidence clearly shows a benefit that outweighs that infintesimal risk.

Losing the penis? Hogwash and anecdotal. There is nothing to support that that is occuring anywhere approaching a rate that would outweigh the proven benefits

I'm an educated woman.

The "conclusions" of PEER REVIEWED research are, actually, a very big deal! Not just any, "I think so..." paper gets published. The results of this study have been reviewed and accepted by other REAL scientists in the field.

The rest of the medical community gets to, now, either replicate or dismantle this study.

No, this study is NOT conclusive; but it gives other PhDs/researchers a path to follow.

For now, it's all we have.

Eric, you apparently didn't realize that in copying my statement, you also copied the citation! Losing a penis, how about David Reimer? There are no proven beneficial results for circumcision. Not one study has actually shown conclusively that circumcision actually benefits a male by extending their life. Each study is targeted at a particular condition in an attempt to justify a surgery that is based on ritual, not medicine. Before circumcision, guys did just fine. In countries with no circumcision (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.) guys do just fine. I'm 63, I have my foreskin and guess what, I'm just fine. My brothers, 3, not a problem. My uncles, same, not a problem. How is it that in the view of the pro-circumcision folks, every male baby is born with a birth defect that needs surgical treatment? I have a sister-in-law, three kids all circumcised. One of the three had a serious infection and almost lost his penis. Why take the risk of an unnecessary surgery on your child?

dale,

apparently you didn't realize some important facts. One is that a "citation" in the scientific sense means a fact from a reputable source, with accompanying information that demonstrates how the data gathering was done. Your "citation" is neither of those things. It is a quote from a journal of no scientific weight, and does not explain how these deaths were indeed determined to be from the circumcision.

Unreliable.

As far as benefiting a male "by extending their life", well, duh. I notice that is the first time you have added that modifier to your claims. Of course no one has shown a mortality benefit from snipping a tiny piece of skin. But mortality, while arguable the most important endpoint, is by no means the only clinically significant one

Circumcision has been proven to reduce the transmission of std's, which is certainly a valuable benefit, even though it may or may not translate to a mortality benefit. That being said, reducing the rate of HIV transmission most certainly must eventually translate to lives saved, even though this hasn't been conclusively shown yet

Your anecdotes about your family are just that...anecdotes. Just as meaningless as your worthless citation

"birth defect" is a strong word with connotations that don't apply here. A more accurate term would be "vestigal" and we certainly remove vestigal organs all the time (tonsils, adenoids, appendix, gall bladder) In fact, routinely surgeons remove the appendix when doing abdominal surgery for other reasons

Again, the rate of complication is far lower than the proven benefit rate from the procedure. Im not sure why you have trouble understanding this

eric, Your 'reliable' sources are not reliable. The interesting thing about STD and circumcision, is that of 30 studies, 26 are very suspect as to methodology. The other 4 cannot be replicated. The beneficial effect seems to decline in direct relation to the healing from the surgery. The concept that every male is born with a birth defect that requires surgery is ridiculous. Despite your denial, that is what you are advocating. If the benefits of circumcision were so great, why are the men of countries with low circumcision rates so healthy? (Sweden, Norway, Finland) Tonsils, adenoids, appendix, gall bladder are all removed when and only when they become a problem. Are you advocating prophylactic removal of these organs shortly after birth? The gall bladder is anything but vestigial.

Bottom line: Circumcision is an unnecessary surgery on healthy babies. It is only performed on healthy babies and yet about 1 in 7000 circumcisions result in death (100 plus in the US per year). The average life expectancy of a US male is 75.6 years. At one point 80% of US males were circumcised. The average life expectancy of a male in Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway is 79.0, 78.7, 76.1, 77.8 years respectively. Circumcision costs money, it is surgery, for it to be justified it must have unequivocally positive results that outweigh the costs. Instead by any objective measure it shortens the average life of the male who is subject to it. It is an archaic ritual that needs to be banned.

if large randomized trials are not reliable to you, then there is no convincing you. Every one of your criticisms is completely false. You have clearly not read the studies. The WHO recommends circumcision...what do you know that they don't?

You keep saying the benefits of circumcision are only linked to the healing from surgery. PLEASE PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE FOR THAT. NOt from a blog, not from a random website, but from a respected scientific journal. And please give me a plausible biologic mechanism for that because it makes no sense

Define "healthy" People in sweden are healthy because they eat right and exercise. Duh

The appendix is NOT only removed when it becomes a problem. It is often removed prophylactically during abdominal surgery as I mentioned above. Talk to some surgeons, research, or I can find something to show you if you don't believe me

If the gall bladder is "anything but vestigal" please tell me why people who have it removed rarely have any problems, and it is often problamatic for people with them? You clearly don't know anything about medicine, no offense

Source for your 1/7000 number (not a blog, etc). Again, as I mentioned earlier, mortality is not the only endpoint. Stop talking about mortality and circumcision. Lets focus on STDs

The Effect of Medical Male Circumcision on Urogenital Mycoplasma genitalium Among Men in Kisumu, Kenya.
Mehta SD, Gaydos C, Maclean I, Odoyo-June E, Moses S, Agunda L, Quinn N, Bailey RC.

Source

From the *Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health, Chicago, IL; †Department of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD; ‡Department of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; and §UNIM Project, Kisumu, Kenya.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

: We determined the prevalence of urethral Mycoplasma genitalium (MG) infection and whether infection was associated with circumcision status among men enrolled in the randomized trial of medical male circumcision to prevent HIV acquisition in Kisumu, Kenya.

METHODS:

: MG and Trichomonas vaginalis were detected in first void urine by APTIMA transcription-mediated amplification assay. first void urine and urethral swabs were assessed for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) by polymerase chain reaction assay. Herpes simplex virus type 2 antibodies were detected by IgG ELISA. Multivariable logistic regression identified factors associated with MG infection.

RESULTS:

: Specimens were collected between July and September 2010, and 52 (9.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3%-12.4%) MG infections were detected among 526 men. N. gonorrhoeae and T. vaginalis were not associated with MG. CT coinfection was 5.8% in MG-infected men, and 0.8% among MG-uninfected men (P = 0.02). MG infection was predominantly asymptomatic (98%). The prevalence of MG was 13.4% in uncircumcised men versus 8.2% in circumcised men (P = 0.06). Being circumcised nearly halved the odds of MG (adjusted odds ratio [aQR] = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.29-0.99), adjusted for other variables significant at the P < 0.05 level: herpes simplex virus type 2 infection (aOR = 2.05; 95% CI: 1.05-4.00), CT infection (aOR = 2.69; 95% CI: 1.44-5.02), and washing the penis ≤1 hour after sex (aOR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS:

: MG infection was reduced among men who were circumcised, adding to the benefits of male circumcision in preventing several sexually transmitted infections.

proof that it should be done earlier rather than later:

Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review.
Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I.

Source

MRC Tropical Epidemiology Group, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. helen.weiss@lshtm.ac.uk

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Approximately one in three men are circumcised globally, but there are relatively few data on the safety of the procedure. The aim of this paper is to summarize the literature on frequency of adverse events following pediatric circumcision, with a focus on developing countries.

METHODS:

PubMed and other databasess were searched with keywords and MeSH terms including infant/newborn/pediatric/child, circumcision, complications and adverse events. Searches included all available years and were conducted on November 6th 2007 and updated on February 14th 2009. Additional searches of the Arabic literature included searches of relevant databases and University libraries for research theses on male circumcision.Studies were included if they contained data to estimate frequency of adverse events following neonatal, infant and child circumcision. There was no language restriction. A total of 1349 published papers were identified, of which 52 studies from 21 countries met the inclusion criteria. The Arabic literature searches identified 46 potentially relevant papers, of which six were included.

RESULTS:

Sixteen prospective studies evaluated complications following neonatal and infant circumcision. Most studies reported no severe adverse events (SAE), but two studies reported SAE frequency of 2%. The median frequency of any complication was 1.5% (range 0-16%). Child circumcision by medical providers tended to be associated with more complications (median frequency 6%; range 2-14%) than for neonates and infants. Traditional circumcision as a rite of passage is associated with substantially greater risks, more severe complications than medical circumcision or traditional circumcision among neonates.

CONCLUSIONS:

Studies report few severe complications following circumcision. However, mild or moderate complications are seen, especially when circumcision is undertaken at older ages, by inexperienced providers or in non-sterile conditions. Pediatric circumcision will continue to be practiced for cultural, medical and as a long-term HIV/STI prevention strategy. Risk-reduction strategies including improved training of providers, and provision of appropriate sterile equipment, are urgently needed.

Circumcision status and incident HSV-2 infection, genital ulcer disease, and HIV infection.
Mehta SD, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, Bailey RC.

Source

aDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health, Illinois, USA bDepartments of Medical Microbiology, Community Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada cRTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA dUNIM Project, Kisumu, Kenya eDepartment of Medical Microbiology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

We assessed the protective effect of medical male circumcision (MMC) against HIV, HSV-2, and GUD incidence.

DESIGN:

2784 men aged 18-24 years living in Kisumu, Kenya were randomly assigned to circumcision (n=1391) or delayed circumcision (n = 1393), and assessed by HIV and HSV-2 testing and medical examinations during follow-ups at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

METHODS:

Cox regression estimated the risk ratio (RR) of each outcome (incident HIV, GUD, HSV-2) for circumcision status and multivariable models estimated HIV risk associated with HSV-2, GUD and circumcision status as time-varying covariates.

RESULTS:

HIV incidence was 1.42 per 100 person-years. Circumcision was 62% protective against HIV [RR = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.22 - 0.67], and did not change when controlling for HSV-2 and GUD [RR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23 - 0.69]. GUD incidence was halved among circumcised men [RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.37 - 0.73]. HSV-2 incidence did not differ by circumcision status [RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.70 - 1.25]. In the multivariable model, HIV seroconversions were tripled [RR = 3.44; 95% CI: 1.52 - 7.80] among men with incident HSV-2 and 7 times greater [RR = 6.98; 95% CI: 3.50 - 13.9] for men with GUD.

CONCLUSION:

Contrary to findings from the South African and Ugandan trials, the protective effect of MMC against HIV was independent of GUD and HSV-2 and MMC had no effect on HSV-2 incidence. Determining the causes of GUD is necessary to reduce associated HIV risk, and to understand how circumcision confers protection against GUD and HIV.

Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men.
Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J.

Source

South African Cochrane Centre, South African Medical Research Council, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505. nandi.siegfried@mrc.ac.za

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Male circumcision is defined as the surgical removal of all or part of the foreskin of the penis and may be practiced as part of a religious ritual, as a medical procedure, or as part of a traditional ritual performed as an initiation into manhood. Since the 1980s, over 30 observational studies have suggested a protective effect of male circumcision on HIV acquisition in heterosexual men. In 2002, three randomised controlled trials to assess the efficacy of male circumcision for preventing HIV acquisition in men commenced in Africa. This review evaluates the results of these trials, which analysed the effectiveness and safety of male circumcision for preventing acquisition of HIV in heterosexual men.

OBJECTIVES:

To assess the evidence of an interventional effect of male circumcision for preventing acquisition of HIV-1 and HIV-2 by men through heterosexual intercourse

SEARCH STRATEGY:

We formulated a comprehensive and exhaustive search strategy in an attempt to identify all relevant studies regardless of language or publication status (published, unpublished, in press, and in progress). In June 2007 we searched the following electronic journal and trial databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. We also searched the electronic conference databases NLM Gateway and AIDSearch and the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and Current Controlled Trials. We contacted researchers and relevant organizations and checked reference lists of all included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised controlled trials of male circumcision versus no circumcision in HIV-negative heterosexual men with HIV incidence as the primary outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and graded methodological quality. Data extraction and methodological quality were checked by a third author who resolved differences when these arose. Data were considered clinically homogeneous and meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS:

Three large RCTs of men from the general population were conducted in South Africa (N = 3 274), Uganda (N = 4 996) and Kenya (N = 2 784) between 2002 and 2006. All three trials were stopped early due to significant findings at interim analyses. We combined the survival estimates for all three trials at 12 months and also at 21 or 24 months in a meta-analysis using available case analyses using the random effects model. The resultant incidence risk ratio (IRR) was 0.50 at 12 months with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.34 to 0.72; and 0.46 at 21 or 24 months (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.62). These IRRs can be interpreted as a relative risk reduction of acquiring HIV of 50% at 12 months and 54% at 21 or 24 months following circumcision. There was little statistical heterogeneity between the trial results (chi(2) = 0.60; df = 2; p = 0.74 and chi(2) = 0.31; df = 2; p = 0.86) with the degree of heterogeneity quantified by the I(2) at 0% in both analyses. We investigated the sensitivity of the calculated IRRs and conducted meta-analyses of the reported IRRs, the reported per protocol IRRs, and reported full intention-to-treat analysis. The results obtained did not differ markedly from the available case meta-analysis, with circumcision displaying significant protective effects across all analyses.We conducted a meta-analysis of the secondary outcomes measuring sexual behaviour for the Kenyan and Ugandan trials and found no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men. For the South African trial the mean number of sexual contacts at the 12-month visit was 5.9 in the circumcision group versus 5 in the control group, which was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). This difference remained statistically significant at the 21-month visit (7.5 versus 6.4; p = 0.0015). No other significant differences were observed.Incidence of adverse events following the surgical circumcision procedure was low in all three trials.Reporting of methodological quality was variable across the three trials, but overall, the potential for significant biases affecting the trial results was judged to be low to moderate given the large sample sizes of the trials, the balance of possible confounding variables across randomised groups at baseline in all three trials, and the employment of acceptable statistical early stopping rules.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months. Incidence of adverse events is very low, indicating that male circumcision, when conducted under these conditions, is a safe procedure. Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts.

Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current evidence and implementation in sub-Saharan Africa.
Wamai RG, Morris BJ, Bailis SA, Sokal D, Klausner JD, Appleton R, Sewankambo N, Cooper DA, Bongaarts J, de Bruyn G, Wodak AD, Banerjee J.

Source

Department of African-American Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA. r.wamai@neu.edu

Abstract

Heterosexual exposure accounts for most HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa, and this mode, as a proportion of new infections, is escalating globally. The scientific evidence accumulated over more than 20 years shows that among the strategies advocated during this period for HIV prevention, male circumcision is one of, if not, the most efficacious epidemiologically, as well as cost-wise. Despite this, and recommendation of the procedure by global policy makers, national implementation has been slow. Additionally, some are not convinced of the protective effect of male circumcision and there are also reports, unsupported by evidence, that non-sex-related drivers play a major role in HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. Here, we provide a critical evaluation of the state of the current evidence for male circumcision in reducing HIV infection in light of established transmission drivers, provide an update on programmes now in place in this region, and explain why policies based on established scientific evidence should be prioritized. We conclude that the evidence supports the need to accelerate the implementation of medical male circumcision programmes for HIV prevention in generalized heterosexual epidemics, as well as in countering the growing heterosexual transmission in countries where HIV prevalence is presently low.

Cost-effectiveness of newborn circumcision in reducing lifetime HIV risk among U.S. males.
Sansom SL, Prabhu VS, Hutchinson AB, An Q, Hall HI, Shrestha RK, Lasry A, Taylor AW.

Source

Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

HIV incidence was substantially lower among circumcised versus uncircumcised heterosexual African men in three clinical trials. Based on those findings, we modeled the potential effect of newborn male circumcision on a U.S. male's lifetime risk of HIV, including associated costs and quality-adjusted life-years saved.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:

Given published estimates of U.S. males' lifetime HIV risk, we calculated the fraction of lifetime risk attributable to heterosexual behavior from 2005-2006 HIV surveillance data. We assumed 60% efficacy of circumcision in reducing heterosexually-acquired HIV over a lifetime, and varied efficacy in sensitivity analyses. We calculated differences in lifetime HIV risk, expected HIV treatment costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) among circumcised versus uncircumcised males. The main outcome measure was cost per HIV-related QALY saved. Circumcision reduced the lifetime HIV risk among all males by 15.7% in the base case analysis, ranging from 7.9% for white males to 20.9% for black males. Newborn circumcision was a cost-saving HIV prevention intervention for all, black and Hispanic males. The net cost of newborn circumcision per QALY saved was $87,792 for white males. Results were most sensitive to the discount rate, and circumcision efficacy and cost.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:

Newborn circumcision resulted in lower expected HIV-related treatment costs and a slight increase in QALYs. It reduced the 1.87% lifetime risk of HIV among all males by about 16%. The effect varied substantially by race and ethnicity. Racial and ethnic groups who could benefit the most from circumcision may have least access to it due to insurance coverage and state Medicaid policies, and these financial barriers should be addressed. More data on the long-term protective effect of circumcision on heterosexual males as well as on its efficacy in preventing HIV among MSM would be useful.

Eric, you quote African study after African study. Quantity does not equal quality. The Canadian Health ministry evaluated the various studies, and found that 26 our of the 30 studies concerning sexual disease transmission were flawed.

Quote: "However, an editorial review of 26 studies on this subject (including 23 of the previously reviewed studies) commented on the lack of a distinction between susceptibility and infectivity, the use of inadequate controls for confounding variables, potential selection biases and misclassifications of exposure or inappropriate choices of comparison groups, each of which may lead to an incorrect estimation of the association. The authors of this review also commented that the use of an OR rather than RR in several of the studies may have led to an overestimation of the association, which would incorrectly suggest a causal relation. They judged that further studies were required to ascertain the RR associated with the lack of circumcision before considering interventional studies."

Bottom line, having a foreskin is natural. Removing the foreskin is prophylactic surgery. (Assuming that it actually prevents any disease.) The United States is now the only Western country in which non-religious neonatal circumcision is frequently practiced. Countries which formerly practiced it (Australia) have not had any measurable increase in male diseases that the pro-circumcision people claim circumcision prevents. Logically that makes sense only if circumcision is not useful. (The neonatal circumcision rate in Australia as of 2003 was under 13%.)

The guidelines for non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision are that only healthy babies will be circumcised. Without adjusting for and removing from any data those babies who were too sick to be circumcised, any comparison is really between a group of healthy babies and a group which contains unhealthy babies. In the study that this MSNBC story reported on, the researchers grouped those with adult circumcisions with the non-circumcised. In each case, the data sets become distorted and the results are thus equally distorted.

Finally, if you don't think the gall bladder has a function, give a person without a gallbladder a really large fatty meal!

q: were the studies I posted included in the 30 you reference? Did you even check

the studies i posted DID distinguish between susceptibility and infectivity by measuring DIRECT rates of HIV infection--thats hardly susceptibility alone

Please specify EXACTLY how the controls were inadqueate. They were randomized and large, with no difference between the two groups. (check out table 1 in every study)

Most of the studies I quoted used RR rather than OR

You are just like every other armchair scientist in the world--you quote criticisms that use words you don't understand. But you still quote it because you think it makes you sound smart and official...until you run into someone who has actually written articles...Basically, nothing you quoted applies TO THE ARTICLES I POSTED

having a foreskin is natural---bacteria are natural, plaque in the arteries is natural, and an appendix is natural...you wouldn't argue that we shouldn't treat appendicitis because the appendix is natural, would you?,

Its funny...you criticise my studies, which are prospective and randomized and controlled, then you mention australia stats which are uncontrolled and retrospective. FUNDAMENTALLY flawed...come on, at least be consistent....

i don't understand your last paragraph, nor see the point of it

Finally, youre wrong about the gall bladder. Nothing would happen if they ate a fatty meal---your liver is capable of producing enough bile without necessarily needing to store it. You have clearly never taken care of patients. But im really sick of talking about that....its so off topic. Why don't you address the appendix, or tonsils, which are clearly vestigal

In Australia, as the circumcision rate dropped dramatically from over 60% on newborn males to less than 13%, male infant mortality (death in first year of life) also dropped from 5.5 to 4.6 deaths per 1,000 live births.

You brought up the gall bladder and claim it was vestigial. You are apparently still claiming it serves no purpose.

Your claims concerning circumcision are similar to those of Australian Brian Morris who has a circumcision fetish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Dr. George William, "Healthy children do not need operations." "It is quackery."

again, the population data you put forth is retrospective and uncontrolled. It actually meets everyone of the criticisms you levied against my data. If you can't understand that, there is nothing I can do to make it simpler to comprehend

For example, what else happened in australia during that time period? Increased hand washing? Changes in surgical technique? Better prenatal care? Who knows?...thats why your data is worthless

Just forget about the damn gall bladder. Like I said, clearly the body has vestigal organs (the appendix is undoubtedly one)...so even though it is natural, it is no longer needed, thus negating your argument that the foreskin is natural and therefore serves a purpose

I don't care who you quote--why should you substitute someone else's judgement for your own? What does that say about how you view your own intelligence and ability to draw conclusions?

I provide data--draw your own conclusion. thats what people normally do

eric, your writing seems frustrated! Humans evolved over millions of years from ape ancestors. Apes have foreskins; humans have foreskins. Other mammals have foreskins. In the case of the appendix, the conclusion is that it is a vestigial organ because our evolutionary ancestors had a functional and larger caecum which is analogous to the appendix. However, the human foreskin is not a reduced structure. It is proportionately the same size as the foreskin in apes. At birth it is adherent to the penis and cannot be freely retracted until about the age of 6 (3-10 years).

My judgement is based on simple logic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The extraordinary claim is that every full term healthy male is born with an issue that requires surgery, circumcision. I know this not to be true because: 1. I am a 62 year old uncircumcised male who has never had a problem. No UTI, no STD, no prostate problem, no nothing. 2. I have knowledge of 3 brothers, a father, grandfathers, many uncles, cousins, and again, no problems. 3. Entire male populations of countries both past and present have lived their lives without the foreskin being an issue. 4. Countries such as Austrailia have gone from not circumcised to circumcised and back without any demonstrable effect on the disease rate or life expectancy of males.

Circumcision is quackery. The people who have advocated it over the years have gone from one issue (masturbation) to others (STD, AIDS). Even the increase in UTIs documented in uncircumcised infants is potentially bogus. The bacterial strains involved in the UTIs are almost always those of the hospital where the child was born, not the bacteria found on the parents or in their homes. (Read the Canadian summary.) I think a thorough investigation would find that hospital staff, through ignorance of a normal penis, are overly aggressive in 'cleaning' and inadvertently causing the UTIs.

If you want to reduce STDs, use condoms; promote monogamy. Both work a lot better than quackery.

dale,

Im frustrated because instead of engaging in an interesting debate, you repeat the same points over and over again without acknowledging anything I have said

The distinction between a vestigal organ that is a reduction of a previous organ vs not is meaningless. I can't understand why this matters. Bottom line is they are both currently vestigal, and both are prophylactically removed. What about tonsils? Are they a reduced structure?

Your second paragraph can be dismissed easily. Firstly, you and your immediate family are not a large enough, nor diverse enough group to glean any conclusions from. Agreed? Now stop mentioning it

You claim that male populations have their foreskins without issues...what do you expect? The foreskin to detonate at age 50? The problems with the foreskin are more insidious and indolent. I have conclusively proven a link between increased transmission of STDs and the presence of a foreskin. If you don't agree, then POST A REBUTTAL IN YOUR OWN WORDS...not copying a pasting from a website from which you clearly do not understand the terms being used

Your data from australia is meaningless for the reasons I posted above. Please address those criticisms before mentioning it again

As far as your claims about the UTI, please provide a source. If the UTI manifest itself within a week or so from delivery, then the strain would be expected to be from the hospital. i don't understand your confusion

Condoms work better--agreed. Monogomy...ha, you are an older gentleman and frankly, it shows. Doesn't work to preach that to kids.

eric, Are you aware that you can insert links into your text? I have provided many links in my previous posts. The Canadian health ministry analysis is HERE.

In it, concerning infant UTIs, it states: "In natural settings, infants are often subject to colonization at birth with the aerobic and anaerobic flora of their mothers; they also receive specific immunoglobulin across the placenta before delivery and, later, through ingestion of breast milk. In contrast, babies born and cared for in hospital tend to be colonized by E. coli acquired from the environment.^43,44 The virulence of E. coli strains isolated in cases of UTI is correlated with the ability of the strain to adhere to uroepithelial cells.⁴⁵ This ability has been shown to be associated with the presence on the bacteria of proteinaceous, filamentous organelles called fimbria, which appear to recognize and bind to specific receptors on the epithelial cells.⁴⁵ Kallenius and associates⁴⁶ reported that 94% of the cases of infantile pyelonephritis they reviewed were due specifically to P-fimbriated E. coli."

43. Gareau FE, Mackel DC, Boring III Jr et al: The acquisition of fecal flora by infants from their mothers during birth. J Pediatr 1959; 54: 313-318

44. Gothefors L, Carlsson B, Ahlstedt S et al: Influence of maternal gut flora and colostral and cord serum antibodies on presence of Escherichia coli in faeces of the newborn infant. Acta Pediatr Scand 1976; 65: 225-232

45. Winberg J, Bollgren I, Kallenius G et al: Clinical pyelonephritis and focal renal scarring. A selected review of pathogenesis, prevention, and prognosis. Pediatr Clin North Am 1982; 29: 801-814

46. Kallenius G, Mollby R, Svenson SB et al: Occurrence of P-fimbriated Escherichia coli in urinary tract infections. Lancet 1981; 2: 1369-1372

I find it very interesting that you find the data, from a first world country similar to the US, populated primarily by English descendants, to be "...meaningless...." to you. However, you find compelling narrowly focused studies from Africa, which concern adult circumcision in impoverished countries, to be compelling!

We shall just agree to disagree. The days of routine neonatal circumcision in the US are numbered. I look forward to the day when the US National Institutes of Health adopts a position similar to that of the Netherlands.

"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

dale,

what is the point of that post? the first paragraph describes the pathology of a UTI--ANY UTI, circumcised or not

Im not interested in the opinion of the canadian gvt--why should I substitute their judgement for my own? Do you not trust yourself

As an aside, I have noticed that you repeatedly copy and paste from pages where you clearly have no idea of the meaning. The first paragraph of your most recent post is a great example. Next time, just try to know what you are posting....its less embarassing for you

I feel as though I've just read the "Letters to the Editor" page.

Boyz! Either replicate or disprove/denounce.

Otherwise, let me get out my ruler...!

Never stopped me...

Circumcision is a barbaric man-made ritual to deter masturbation

I used to do that so much in the shower I got excited every time it rained!!!

hahahahahahahahaha! Have you never met a circumcised man?

ADS, YES!

truthbaby, I agree except that the foreskin is the result of evolution. The fact that almost all male infants are born with a foreskin indicates unequivocally that the foreskin is beneficial.

@Dale,

Actually the foreskin helps shield the glans of the penis from abrasion and injury. Both abrasion and injury would make the glans less sensitive and therefore sex would be less rewarding. The original medical theory was that circumcision would allow abrasion of a child's penis against their clothing to reduce sensitivity and would, therefore, reduce the incidence of masturbation or "non-procreative" sex. Uncircumcised men, on average enjoy about 10 more years of active sex than circumcised men, so the original medical reason was probably accurate if overstated. The issues with infections, harboring viruses, etc have come along as convenient rationalizations to keep the "revenue stream" constant. There is actually no peer-reviewed double-blind correlation studies that show any statistically significant benefits to circumcision. Given that the rates of circumcision have dropped dramatically in the last couple of decades, there should be profound statistical differences and there are not.

This is very similar to the autism and mercury in vaccines things. When organic mercury was taken out of childhood vaccines, autism rates should have plummeted, but they continue to rise unabated. This alone tells you that there was no involvement. Right now we should be seeing dramatic increases in STD's and HPV and HIV and infections among men that are focused on those who are not circumsized. This is not occurring. Physicians use a lot of "surrogate endpoint" reasoning. (If A=B and B=C then A=C) that seldom proves out in real life.

Truth, you say "God put that foreskin there and it should stay there." He's the same guy who says it should be removed! LOL

Has anyone written an article on how pedophiles are ripping out innocent children's wisdom teeth that God put there? No one will be able to chew their food and they will starve! I've also heard that religious perverts are having people's appendixes removed.

End sarcasm.

Evolution is always working. If we keep wearing underwear the foreskin will continue to shrink just as wisdom teeth will eventually stop coming in if the human jaw keeps getting smaller or even if it stays the same.

BTW, anyone who thinks that the only reason doc's decided to remove the foreskin is because of masturbation is crazy and may have some sexual issues of their own. The did it because it was a Judeo-Christian thing. The question is why would anyone come up with that idea to set themselves apart for their god? I think that it did somehow lower health problems just as some asian medicinal practices lowered health issues but neither of these cultures understood why.

Dogma Bites- just as wisdom teeth will eventually stop coming in if the human jaw keeps getting smaller or even if it stays the same.

I only ever had two wisdom teeth- just like my mom. Dentists thought I'd already had two removed, as there isn't anything on x-rays where they'd be. Wish the other two didn't grow either- had to have those removed in my twenties.

Dale, that is a false conclusion. Being born with something does not always indicate that it is beneficial. Natural selection and evolution work more like this. If there is a particular trait for which removing it provides a reproductive advantage, that trait will eventually be removed from a population. But, if you remove the selective pressure for a trait, it's absence or presence will not be based upon some evolutionary advantage. In today's society, breeding success is not really tied to whether or not you have the foreskin of the penis, so even if it is not longer needed, it won't likely be removed through evolution.

Here's a good counter example to demonstrate this point. All male children develop facial hair when they hit puberty. So, facial hair must be beneficial and shaving it is wrong. Here's another one. All people grow toenails and finger nails so cutting them is wrong. Like your example, these one makes the false assumption that all traits present are good traits when in reality many traits we have do not provide any advantage or disadvantage to breeding success. But they're still present because they don't really do anything against it and there is no selective pressure to remove them.

For dogma, not necessarily. As I posted before, in order for traits to be removed from a population, you usually need some selective pressure against that trait. If the trait, such as wisdom teeth, doesn't actually affect breeding potential, then it's likely to remain in the population. Same thing with the foreskin example. There needs to be some selective pressure against having it before you will start to see it being removed through evolution. Also, you're unlikely to see the effects of evolution since this would take several generations to start showing noticeable effects.

So... Jews and Muslims don't masturbate?

You're funny!

www.Muslimsforpork.net

www.lemonparty.org

hahaha

WTF are you talking about. You are talking out of your prostate, women do not have a prostate. The prostate is a male organ.

It is obvious sarcasm Robbie. Hundreds of $billions are wasted annually on fraudulent research such as this. The research on circumcision in this article fits the category

@Dave,

This guy is a physician, not a scientist. They are NOT the same thing.

Yeah. The prostrate is like the ego - male only organ.

CRAP ====Can't you people take a JOKE!!!!!

chris,

I have noticed an anti physican rant in every single one of your posts, in multiple threads. Are you jealous or something? Could you not get into medical schoo? Or did your urologist lop off too much...

eric-2573068,

Your last post is beyond "a little" personal. In what way are a "scientist" and an "MD" the same thing? Academic degree v "professional" degree.

Personally, I think you owe Chris-749391 an apology.

vt,

with all due respect, you are stepping into a conversation much more than midway through. I guess its not your fault that you are completely wrong. Just take it as a lesson not to jump to conclusions by getting half the story

Chris has made multiple posts on multiple threads denegrating physicians. I think that is much more insulting than what is clearly a joke to everyone on this thread but you

In fact, I find your labelling of MD as a "professional degree" insulting. It is an obvious attempt to lower the value of the degree. In actuality, it is a degree that requires very hard work, excellent grades, and many years to earn, no matter what you think or what you call it.

As far as a scientist and MD being the same thing, why don't you google "jonas salk"

Don't you feel a tad embarassed now?

Anyway, Personally, I think you owe me an apology, but somehow I doubt you are classy enough to go through with it

I couldn't even form coherent words for the next eight months or so.

Ok, now these two comments are seriously funny!! Thanks, guys!!!

HILARIOUS!!! Thanks for laugh stonepipe and Chris!

You read wrong.

Ask a woman what she prefers, then get back to me.

As far as male satisfaction, that is a myth, when it goes "bang" it goes "bang".

And most women do NOT like the look of an un circumcised penis.

Viewer Ready: Well, I'm a woman and I think circumcised penises are unattractive. As with most subjects, it doesn't pay to generalize.

Kinky is as kinky does.

Have it your way.

I thought we were talking about health issues here, not ascetic's.

And you are wrong, MOST women prefer circumcised.

As a woman, I absolutely prefer uncircumsized.

Why?

I've enjoyed both and couldn't care less. As long as it performs it's none of my business.

I have to agree with Viewer here. Most (not all) women prefer circumcised.

"it is dangerous NOT to be circumcised." ......... Dangerous ? 50k die in cars every year.

Wow!,.. that was profoundly intregal to this thread!

"profoundly" ........ thanks.

@Viewer it's called significance. thus the car example by ptownz, simply pointing to an "increased risk" is not the same thing as a significant risk. the question is, is the risk high enough to warrant mutilation? and is mutilation the only means of preventing infection? to both the answer is a resounding no.

Dangerous?? You're speaking out of your ass. I'm 30 and have NEVER had 1 issue with my penis. I get routine checkups and physicals and my doc says I'm in tip top shape. I would just like to thank my parents (who are both European) that I don't have to use lotion when I masturbate.

"Tip-top" now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

Besides, lotion is good :)

@Viewer Ready,

Wrong! Circumcision was being pushed as a medical "cure" for masturbation and non-procreative sex before anything much was really known about disease and disease transmission. Do you honestly think that physicians a hundred years ago thought, "Gee, if we circumcise all the little boys it will prevent the transmission of diseases that we know nothing about?" You're talking about times when most physicians did not even graduate from high school. They still though Yellow Fever was caused by "bad air" and that typhoid was caused by the consumption of potatoes and tomatoes. But physicians a hundred years ago were obsessed with sex and its prevention.

100 years ago, hand lotion had not been invented.

And sex (though Bullsh!t) was taboo.

Also, blue jeans hadn't been invented, and the list goes on.

You can bet that your sons will be glad you didn't "think".

You can bet that your sons will be glad you didn't "think".

I agree. My parents made the decision for me and I'm glad they did. Every woman I've ever been with has said that we look better snipped.

I took my hubby's advice on the matter- since he's the one with experience growing up snipped (and yes, our boys are too).

Chris: How do you know that every woman you've been with didn't say the same thing to an intact man? It's called flattery. (I'll leave alone the issue of how you ended up with women complimenting your circumcision status. It would never occur to me to praise my lover about whether or not he had a foreskin, especially given that it's rarely a choice on his part. I've generally got other issues on my mind during those moments.)

Now, I've certainly discussed the issue with women (usually in the context of what to do about baby boys), and I've met very few women who have ever had an intact guy as a lover, so they wouldn't have much to report. Leaving baby boys uncircumcised is a more common decision among Hispanics and Europeans, so maybe we should get a multicultural panel to address the issue...

chris, you comments about "looking better snipped" is just because circumcision has been in the majority. As circumcision decreases more people will find it more normal to be uncircumcised. I do not think it makes a difference to the women, but to the man sensitivity is supposed to be much greater if uncircumcised and the glans protected.

Was this a long time ago? Both my boys had a numbing gel applied beforehand, and the procedure was done by a pediatrician, not a nurse. My oldest actually slept through it.

Exactly 17 years and 9 months ago. Not only the baby screamed and shake uncontrollably in pain. The baby also turned red almost purple in color from all that screaming. I felt so bad for that little one.

It was over in a flash, and the baby does not remember it nor would you.

In contrast, ask anyone who had infections who had to have this done at a later age.

Viewer, it is really time that we take pain infants feel as real and unnecessary. We continue to do procedures on these small humans without anasthesia with the excuse that they do not feel it or will not remember it later anyway. It is a sorry excuse.

Maybe you should deny pain medication or anesthesia on your next medical procedure. They could just tie you to the bed and cut away.

**and I have yet to see one post of yours to support these "infections" you keep talking about.

I have seen hundreds of circumcisions. It is nowhere near as dramatic as Robbie is playing it out to be. The procedure itself is done and over with in a matter of minutes. And I know of zero nurses who do this procedure- I'm pretty sure you have to be an actual medical practitioner to perform any kind of surgery.

If you cut off the head that is called "partial castration".

Circumcision is not even close.

(unless you get a blind doctor to do it)

May not be the actual head but it looks like that when it's in it's natual habitat....ha ha ha h

Nope, (funny though) the erect penis loses the length of the foreskin.

SO it does not really matter in "size".

Viewer, correct, but it does matter how it is used.

Madness is justified of her children, and no amount of pseudo-intellectual blather changes the easily observable fact that a human has been assaulted with a knife. To attempt this idiocy on someone other than a defenseless child would likely result in your death. What adults do with their own bodies is their decision. But I think a child's rights should be protected and valued as much as your own.

Adults make those decisions for their child.

It comes from experience.

Adults also make decisions to abuse and neglect. Be patient, do no harm, think for yourself, and err on the side of millions of years of evolutionary trial and error. This comes from vastly more experience.

Lets use some logic with your statement. You are arguing that black men don't get circumcised and they are twice as likely to get prostate cancer. While white men get circumcised and are half as likely to get prostate cancer. Sounds like your study proves the relationship between circumcision and prostate cancer is very pronounced. The only way to disprove this relationship would be to give another reason for black men to get prostate cancer then white men.

It is genetics and not circumcision that determines the rate of prostate cancer. The larger the prostate have more prostate cells you have, more cells to go wrong. Blacks have twice the rate of prostate cancer than white regardless if they had circumcision or not.

Robbie the robot, the more I read your comments, the less I think you actually know what you're talking about.

Your criticism is misdirected. These scientists, almost surely, did not imply causation and are probably upfront about confounding factors and unanswered questions. You should be complaining about the journalist. The journalists are the ones who imply causation in their articles when they summarize a peer-reviewed journal article.

It's a job creator.

With that logic we should still eat raw meat and live outside.

How many other animals write comments on the internet?

They don't have thumbs to hold the knife.

How do you know there is no correlation? This may be a break through study that will link why those other men are getting prostate cancer at a higher rate. Maybe it is not just a genetic issue. Did you ever think of that?

Rick, you make a big stance but clearly you have no clue about how scientific studies are constructed. All issues, especially medical, have multiple truly contributing variables and multiple confounding variables. These people aren't total dingbats. They control for as much differences in people that they possibly can before even performing the research.

Additionally, the reason one group might have a higher risk for prostate cancer than another does NOT preclude a shared reason why they both would be at increased risk.

With that logic, there is only one cause for every effect.

I was circumcised as an infant.

I'm not happy about it.

In any other developed nation on earth this discussion thread is being viewed with bewilderment. Nobody else has industrialized this cosmetic surgery as has been done here.

The idea that parents should have some magical right to perform destructive cosmetic surgery on an infant is a left-over from the attitude that children are property. Remember, we got child protection laws in the US not because we figured out children needed protection, but because our animal protection laws were actually stronger than our child protection laws.