Circumcision: a medically unnnecessary scam!

The vast majority of circumcisions performed in the U.S. are done for medical and not religious reasons.

 

Yep, I surely want to go there since you and your studies have not a leg to stand on.

Please, be educated:

Child Circumcision: An Elephant In The Hospital -- A direct feed from Georgetown University Medical School.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ceht-3xu84I"]Circumcision - An Elephant In The Hospital[/ame]

The entire AIDS-thing is utter nonsense -- fast forward to 29m10s for that one.

 

False.

Watch the video I've just provided, IgnoranceIsBliss...

Circumcision is not a medical operation, but a social and cosmetic one.

 

IGNORANCEISBLISS!

You are a smart guy... watch the video. Please.

Lower rates of STD's -- False.

Lower rates of cancer -- completely laughable. More males die from circumcisions than from penile cancer...

 

...

Circumcision rate in the USA is dropping enormously. From a 80~90% rate of all male newborns in the 1980's-1990's to around 40~50% in 2010.

Again -- watch the video.

 

no they are not, as the American Academy of Pediatricians, American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the American College of Urologists do not recommend them as routine procedures.

Don't remain blissfully ignorant.

 

perhaps to demonstrate that you understood what was in them ?

By the way, Jazzerman provided a paper that demonstrated foreskins to contain immune cells that provide resistance to HIV contraction. Had you actually read and comprehended, you would know this.

 

I can't watch it at work. I'll check it out tonight.

 

Hey. I'll bet this guy would have preferred a circumcision as opposed to what he got.

http://www.emirates247.com/crime/wo...f-mum-s-lover-s-body-part-2012-03-20-1.449465

 

I understand that a great number of non-Jews in the US are given this operation. Since it is part of the Jewish religion I accept that custom for Jews (you may hate Jews, but that is because you are American, trained to hate everyone - I hate nobody because I am a socialist). I don't know what that gobbledegook about liberals may mean - it seems to be in American - but what I want is for no-one to be subjected to compulsory operations before they are old enough to give their consent, unless there is an extremely good case for it. As far as I know there is no such case here. That seems obvious enough, surely?

 

Absolutely. Foreskin dermal tissues contain a variety of cells, and are not just limited to one particular form of cellular expression. CD4+ HIV-1 (the largest variant of the virus) can only bind to cells that express the CCR5 and/or CXCR4 receptors, depending on the particular viral tropism of the person who is infecting the other. This means that cells lacking these receptors, or with receptors that don't function properly, are essentially immune to the virus. However, there is something to note here. Receptors on a certain cells membrane are not expressed by every other cell, and while some of the cells than maintain resistance to HIV are found in the foreskin, not ALL cells found in the foreskin are of this particular order...ie. the Langerhans mentioned in the study.

We're dealing with many varities of cells here, not just those with the potential to resist the virus. So yes, your half right here. There are cells found in the foreskin that essentially are "immune" for lack of better words, but there are many other cells that are not.

 

Looks interesting. I'll have to dive into this a little deeper when I have the time (I'm currently at work), but I've forwarded to the part you mentioned and also ready Dr. McAllister's study paper on the subject. A few things strike me first though...one of those is that McAllister is a Experimental Nonlinear Dynamics Physicist and doesn't appear to have (at first glance) the necessary knowledge to talk about Virology at the same level as a trained and educated Physician or Virologist. Second, I do agree with him that if condoms and other preventative methods were used more often, we would actually see the prevalence of HIV reduce at a far smaller cost. He is definitely spot on with that assessment. However, I will maintain that the foreskin is a penetrable layer of skin that although consisting of CD4+ resistant cells, still contains enough dual tropic cells for easier infection. I'm not arguing the fact that other methods of protection may work better (that is 100% true) or bringing the ethical and moral behaviors into the discussion. Nevertheless, the foreskin does contain cells and is porus enough that it allows for easier infection and one way to reduce that is to circumsize.

I would actually venture to say that viral cell attachment actually happens more in the urethra than the foreskin, but that doesn't mean there are not instances of the virus penetrating through the foreskin. So yes, circumcision does reduce the risk of HIV entry points, but what type of percentage (as outlined in McAllisters study) would be lower than some other methods.

 

you have given no data that demonstrates relative susceptibility

 

The doctor pushed for mr to have my sons fixed! I looked at pics of circumcisions gone bad and decided against it.

Women generally prefer the look of a clean cut but a cut penis can cause a woman rawness.

Size is really not an issue. I think that you may think it increases girth but that is pretty much false. Though it does increase the ares around the head a hair.

Personally I think it is not necessary but there again many young parents have no idea how to care for an uncut penis and it gets infected.

 

Doesn't select abortion either but in a compassionate world we care for and nurture infantas and children. Liberals, don't. We can also educate people if we disagree with something but liberals don't do that either. It's the fist or nothing.

Let the purges begin.

 

I don't particularly remember you asking for raw data from myself in particular. I'm not dipping my hand into the pot as far as the susceptability of getting HIV through contact with mucosal fluids and foreskin contact. I'm only stating that you can indeed get HIV through the foreskin through the methods I have described. Now, if your talking raw data here about prevalence rates, that's a whole other piece of the puzzle. I would agree with anyone who says that the rate of getting HIV through the foreskin is low...that is absolutely true. However, I think the problem is that we're talking on different wavelengths here, rather than actually disagreeing with a set premise. Again, I'm only speaking of the methods of transmission...not the rates of transmission. Those are two completely different data sets, and I think where we're seeing either some miscommunication or a difference in opinion between us.

If you want data on foreskin transmissions then I agree with you, it's going to be low, but that factor alone does not negate the other fact that the transmission of the virus through the foreskin is indeed a viable route for HIV and CD4+ cells to meet.

 

what does "what liberals do" have to do with forcing an elective procedure on an infant ? Sounds like the fist or nothing to me.

 

HAVE PROVEN THAT CIRCUMCISION ABSOLUTELY HELPS PREVENT PROSTATE CANCER.

IT ALSO HELPS PREVENT CERVICAL CANCER IN WOMEN PARTNERS

 

really. Have you asked any European women?

 

If you have not demonstrated outcome differences, you have not demonstrated medical benefit.

That mucosal tissue differs from skin is not a revelation.
Of course that does draw into question the phrase "useless piece of skin"

 

wow, the prostate ? That is cool.
Could you show me the data ?

what is the incidence of HPV infected females in our predominately circumcised culture ?

 

I got some bad news for you guys. A HUGE portion of the population of Europe is circumcized...more so than here.

And you guys KNOW how often you say we are so backward to those on the continent.

Muslims are mostly circumcized. Strange Margot hasn't been on here to impart her muslim expertise in the matter.

 

Rubbish. Absolute rubbish, AshenLady.

And a quick Google search verifies you are completely wrong.

 

The entire process of "medicalization" of circumcision is nothing more than an attempt to try to justify the obvious vulgarity and absolote brutalness enacted upon an individual who can't stand up for himself.

If you want to circumcise yourself at an adult age, fine. But not innocent babies.

 

cHECK MEDICAL LITERATURE. gOOGLE IS OLD STUFF.

THE PIECE OF SKIN STINKS IN THE DESERT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE FRESH WATER TO BATHE IN.

THAT IS SOMETHING YOU NORTHERNERS CAN'T UNDERSTAND.

THE REMNANTS CAN CAUSE CANCER AND CANCER, SO AN OLD COVENANT IS STILL MAKING GOOD SENSE TO MODERN MEN.