or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › circumcism rates dramtically falling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

circumcism rates dramtically falling - Page 3

post #41 of 48
brant, you can join a site like http://www.photobucket.com and upload them there, and then post the link to those images here.
post #42 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papai View Post
brant, you can join a site like http://www.photobucket.com and upload them there, and then post the link to those images here.
That's, I think, is a good way to do it.
post #43 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeekingJoy View Post
Quote: "One of the strengths of the study was its longitudinal design, which followed subjects for 90 days following circumcision. "

I really struggle when 90 days is considered long enough.
BINGO! I know several boys who "needed" to have surgery to correct meateal stenosis YEARS after their circumcision--and meateal stenosis is caused by circumcision.
post #44 of 48
I just found this photo:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/...d=202794322670

I think I understand now what it is showing (but not where the numbers came from). Over 3 years, the average was 43%, with 56% in 2006 and 33% in 2009.
post #45 of 48
2006 to 2009 is 4 years, if its from Jan 2006 to Dec 2009. We need to know the start and end dates of the period. If it what (say) Oct 2006 to Nov 2009 it would be 3 years.

I notice that in circ stats there are about 8 states which shpw 'no data'. Maybe there are hospitals in other states which have 'no data'. If the study uses all birth data and only some of the circ data that might explain the low rate found. This would mean the study is fraudulent, which until proven otherwise, I believe it is.

The study seems to rely on hospital records for evidence of 'adverse events.' Most complications will not be known by hospitals, this approach is misleading and irresponsible.
post #46 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSmomtobe View Post
I just found this photo:
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/...d=202794322670

I think I understand now what it is showing (but not where the numbers came from). Over 3 years, the average was 43%, with 56% in 2006 and 33% in 2009.

Yes, that is one of the main slides I have pictures of.

Apparently in further text the CDC explains that they didn't collect the data (they paid a service to gather it for them) and the time period in question is end of 2006 to end of 2009. In other words, 2007, 2008 and 2009.

The data are fraught with potential problems. Many preemies are circumcised outside of the 28-day window this data review used. Many circs are coded differently than what this study was designed to catch, or may not be on the discharge sheets at all, and no out-of-pocket circs would be included because the data ran off of insurance billing codes.

The CDC emphasizes that this study should not be used to estimate the US circumcision rate. It was commissioned so they could determine the rate of serious adverse events (AEs) from circumcision in the first 4 weeks of life.

They are trying to build the argument that it is always preferable to circumcise as young as possible, because there are more complications with general anesthesia and stitches in an older boy or adult. Rather dishonestly, this CDC "study" would never catch any complication that manifests after 28 days, such as adhesions, skin bridges, crooked scars, meatal stenosis or permanent curvature.
post #47 of 48
I hope I start seeing this more. I'm a newborn photographer and every single baby boy I've photographed this year has been circ'd with the exception of a close friend's baby. I'm in Houston.
post #48 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell View Post
I hope I start seeing this more. I'm a newborn photographer and every single baby boy I've photographed this year has been circ'd with the exception of a close friend's baby. I'm in Houston.
Yeah, I've worked more than a decade in obstetrics in Texas. The circ rates are no where near what the published rates state. I'd be willing to bet even if you factor in all the border town births and home births that TX still has about a 70% rate of circ. Unfortunately. However, it is still lower than it was a few decades ago. Even just a little progress is progress, I suppose.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › circumcism rates dramtically falling