Disturbing pro-circ publications, peer-reviewed, pubmed-available articles

[noodlemaz]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1793520...Pubmed_RVDocSum

This really bothers me and I'd like to put together a well-referenced e-mail to this man (brainm@medsci.usyd.edu.au) telling him what a load of utter rubbish even just that abstract is.

[joelface]

That particular author has tons of papers just like that very one. he is VERY pro-circ, and routinely makes claims as absurd as all those myths he presented as fact.

i am absolutely positive that even if you wrote him the most convincing email of all time, he would only be more excited to write his next pro-circ piece.

[joelface]

look at this article written by Dr, Brian Morris that completely COMPLETELY proves my point:

Circumcision is ethical just as vaccination is. Parents have a legal right to authorize circumcision for their male children. Just as they have the right to authorize vaccination, and a raft of other measures they need to decide to do in the very best interests of their children's well-being and future health. Infancy is the best time to circumcise (see below) and reduces by 10-fold a boy's risk of urinary tract infection, an excruciatingly painful condition that leads to permanent kidney damage in around half. Why risk this?

I see the anti-circs have mobilized their fanatical membership to vote on this opposing views site. These people have a lot of time on their hands, unlike doctors, scientists and the well-informed public, and the anti-circs are highly organized. We, however, prefer publication of the truth in scientific arenas and know that internet vote counts have little validity. Only science does, and fortunately for the good of public health and individual well-being the science on circumcision is solidly in support of this simple, low cost, low (or no) pain, cheap, health-giving, cosmetically desirable procedure best performed in infancy, but available at any age.

There are also anti-vaccination organizations and one could substitute the word 'vaccination' for 'circumcision' in the rant of the representative of the lunatic fringe who wrote this hysterical tripe and one would get the same.

Circumcision is legal. Misinterpreting a UN document as the anti-circs does not help their cause. UNAIDS and the WHO have endorsed circumcision for prevention of HIV infection. A recent document extends this by confirming that infancy is the ideal time to circumcise boys, and pointing out the many other benefits, the high acceptability of circumcision by in diverse cultures who had not previously circumcised their boys, and many other aspects of this practice, including its high prevalence worldwide, namely 34%.

The anti-circs say that they had a meeting and agreed amongst themselves at a conference they held 20 years ago. Well, whooppeee! (not!).

Then they mention their myth that circumcision was used commonly in Victorian times as a cure for masturbation. ... WRONG! This idea was unknown to most Victorians, who nevertheless knew that circumcision improved penile hygiene and prevented syphilis and various other sexually transmitted infections, just as now confirmed by the gold standard of epidemiology - the randomized clinical trial - which has now included prevention of HIV infection. That is why WHO, UNAIDS, and other organizations are working hard to roll out circumcision in Africa, estimating that many millions of lives and millions of dollars will be saved.

So you can see that what the anti-circs have written is a pack of lies. Their propaganda included the premise that if you tell a lie often enough in as many forums as you can then eventually people will accept it as the truth. I hope that if you read the rubbish the anti-circs have written on this site you will treat it with the contempt that it deserves.

There is no need to wait for this 'age of consent'. Doing so means greatly increased costs, risk of disease and other medical conditions in childhood for 10-30% of boys, is far less convenient, and a much more involved operation owing to the greater size of the organ to be operated on; then the risk of erections and down-time as far as sex is concerned.

Doctors who circumcise are doing what is best for their patients and the public health of the community. The maxim 'First Do No Harm' means that for the simple harmless procedure of circumcision, an operation that leads to a lifetime of harm prevention to the male himself and his future sexual partners, then the doctor has a duty to accurately inform parents and others of the benefits and low, mostly minor risks in a tiny proportion and then carry out the circumcision to the best of their ability.

If the anti-circs were genuinely concerned for the well-being of individuals and the population as a whole they would detract from their nonsense and promote truth on this issue. But having s.pewed forth their garbage for decades that would be a big ask. Their 'cause' is now lost and they are in retreat. The bleating that can be heard has now retracted to internet sites and the like, a medium that is used by other undesirables in society who wish to cause mischief and harm.

[attismum]

Projecting much?