Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › so.. are there really arguments on both sides...??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

so.. are there really arguments on both sides...?? - Page 2  

post #21 of 33
In the very begining (the early 1870's) it started being done to curb masturbation and quickly evolved to be the cure for what ever dread disease was the most feared at the time. This included paralysis, blindness and tuberculosis. This same tactic is still being tried today with claims that it prevents cancer and HIV/AIDS, the two most feared diseases of modern society. Circumcision has always been a cure looking for something to cure.

In the early days, few people could even read and far, far fewer had access to medical libraries or the education to understand what they were reading. In this environment, they had to depend on the advise of doctors and the doctors were telling them that circumcsion was almost a necessity. Then, just as now, reason and common sense was in short supply. Regardless of the fact that almost all men were intact and happy and healthy, they believed what the doctors told them. It became "common knowledge" that circumcision was medically beneficial and not harmful to the man. It was not until the advent of the internet that this information was widely available to all. The truth is that there is no benefit, only harm from circumcision yet, current day doctors keep preaching the mantra that circumcision is almost inevitable at some point in a man's life. Sadly, few question them because it's "common knowledge" and few people are intelligent and educated enough to question the doctor.

The good thing is that doctors are having to face this issue head on and learn about the truth. Some are fighting it tooth and nail but all will eventually come around. (or die)




Frank
post #22 of 33
Quote:
However, many non-circumcising countries have lower penile cancer rates than the almost universally circumcised Americans.
Frank, do you have any statistics on this?
What countries are they?

I have been having a "friendly chat" with a urologist from my fatherland, and he tells me that all the cases of penile cancer he gets are all men with phimosis.

What do you think?
post #23 of 33

Just where are these pro-circ studies?

I searched and searched on the web and couldn't find them... :LOL

My friend who I posted about in a different thread tried to convince me that uncirc'd boys are made fun of and that's why she circ'd her DS (aside from the "must look like DH" argument)

She is now on some sort of crusade to convince me it's ok (guilt maybe?) In deference to our friendship I tried simply making this face and changing the subject, but she persisted with descriptions of the circ and all the trouble they had to go through to get it done : She told me she and her husband and 2 year old DS were outside the surgeon's office waiting for the circumcision to be done while the baby was wailing hysterically inside the office. Her 2 year old DS was saying "baby hurt?" and looking very concerned and she was telling him "no baby's fine"



Baby is NOT FINE!
post #24 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by colaga
Frank, do you have any statistics on this?
What countries are they?
The two that I remember off the top of my head are Sweden and Japan. There were a couple of dozen in the study. You can find the information at www.cirp.org and use the search term "penile cancer."

Quote:
I have been having a "friendly chat" with a urologist from my fatherland, and he tells me that all the cases of penile cancer he gets are all men with phimosis.

What do you think?
Basically, I think he is full of it! Penile cancer is so rare that few hospitals have ever seen a case much less an individual doctor. For a doctor to have seen more than one case is akin to winning the Powerball Lottery in two successive weeks. Even in countries with very high rates, we're only talking about 4-5 cases per 100,000 men so regardless of where he is, it is highly unlikely that he as ever seen a case much less more than one.

It appears that the cause of penile cancer is the HPV virus and most people develop a natural immunity to it. There is a new vaccine for HPV that will be available next year that will finally eliminate any argument for circumcision to prevent penile cancer in men.


The phimosis argument doesn't carry much weight either. There are very simple solutions for the vast majority of phimosis cases that don't involve surgery. You also have to remember that adult phimosis occurs in less than 1% of all intact males.

It is also important to note that penile cancer is simply a form of skin cancer just like people get on their face and arms and the treatment is the same. The cancer and just a little bit of the surrounding skin is excised and it's done for. Circumcising for penile cancer would be like removing the entire nose for a case of skin cancer on the nose. It just doesn't make sense unless the man has ignored the cancer for a long time and it has invaded other areas instead of getting prompt treatment.




Frank
post #25 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breathless Wonder
I think alot of people are still basing their decisions on the medical studies that said circing was better. Those studies are pretty readily available. But the critiques that rip the studies apart are not. OR they give less weight to those critiques and opposition.

I always hear- but look at who funded the study- well okay, who are you going to believe? The docs who fund the study saying circ is better, and then make money off the circ, or the docs who say intact is better, and get ??? in return? Do they beleive that only studies funded by large universities, hospitals or pharmaceutical companies have validity? Is it a case of being blinded by the "experts", not being able to believe anyone that doesn't have a string of letters after their name, or a huge list of titles has anything worthwhile to say? Then there are the government agancies, or doctor/nurse orgainizations, who have members on staff with conflicting interests... why do their opinions count more? Specifically when it can be VERY difficult to get funding for a study that MIGHT have an outcome that hurts the bottom line? Yes, maybe all of the mainstream medical studies say that circ is better, cleaner, etc. but do these people stop to ask themselves why? Do they ever wonder what studies DIDN'T get done, and why? Using vax as an example, there have been no studies comparing vaxed populations to unvaxed because the doctors beleive it would be medically unethical to deny a child the medical life saver that is vaccination. So the end result are a bunch of studies that give us a lop sided view of the issue.

B/c most people are too stupid to understand this. They hear a doctor and they think he spouts the word of god.
post #26 of 33
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by colaga
Frank, do you have any statistics on this?
What countries are they?

I have been having a "friendly chat" with a urologist from my fatherland, and he tells me that all the cases of penile cancer he gets are all men with phimosis.

What do you think?
well, I think you should tell your urologist that yes, rumour is that (coincidentally enough) women that get breast cancer, HAVE BREASTS! ofcourse that just by having a part of the body, you have naturally a chance that some illness related to that part will happen, but to me that is no reason to cut it off.
post #27 of 33
Thanks Frank!

I have been looking at various cancer statisitcs (like here http://www-depdb.iarc.fr/who/menu.htm) and not found any mention on penile cancer, at all. Is that because it is so rare?
I also found some statistics about cancers in my home country but again, there was no mention of penile cance.

This doctor claims that he sees 3-4 men with penile cancer every year and that they all are men with phimosis!
I wonder why then there was no mention of any penile cancers in the chart that I found, there must be some people who do get it though, don't you think?
post #28 of 33
loving my babies

He was trying to prove to me that phimosis causes penile cancer!
That evil tight foreskin!
post #29 of 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by colaga
Thanks Frank!

I have been looking at various cancer statisitcs (like here http://www-depdb.iarc.fr/who/menu.htm) and not found any mention on penile cancer, at all. Is that because it is so rare?
Penile cancer is one of the rarest of all cancers and gets far more press than it deserves. Most cancers of similar rarity are ones that we have never heard of. The reason we hear of penile cancer is because it is used to justify circumcision, the cure in search of something to cure. Certainly, they are scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one. It has been estimated that the death rate of neonatal circumcision is about the same or exceeds the death rate of penile cancer. Truthfully, no man should ever die of either of these.

Quote:
This doctor claims that he sees 3-4 men with penile cancer every year and that they all are men with phimosis!
It's pretty obvious that he is misdiagnosing these men. That, or he is in an area that should be investigated and written up in the medical journals. I strongly suspect it is the former. It appears that the true worldwide incidence is about one man in 1/4 million are affected by penile cancer. He couldn't possibly have enough patients to see that many cases. I'm just currious, where is he located?


Quote:
I wonder why then there was no mention of any penile cancers in the chart that I found, there must be some people who do get it though, don't you think?
Oh, yes, there are men who get it. It's just so rare that most of them are not reported in the statistics. They are just not statistically significant enough to waste the paper required to print them. Incidentally, in all of my time involved in this issue, I have only heard of one IRL case of penile cancer. It was exactly on the man's circumcision scar. So much for circumcision preventing penile cancer! It would appear that the circumcision had something to do with it!



Frank
post #30 of 33
Frank, I just logged on in a hurry, so I don't have time to read your post in it's entirety. But I'll tell you that the urologist is located in Riga. He's also said that last year there were 32 surgeries performed on men (in Latvia) with cancer of penis. I looked in statistics, there is even no mention of cancer of penis, only prostate.
post #31 of 33
I don't know how many men are in Riga but for the entire US, there are about 1,400 cases a year if I remember correctly. That's of about 200 million men in the US. If my math is correct, that would be around .0007%. I assume that Riga is a city and not a very large city so I just can't believe there could possibly be that many cases. Is it possible he is thinking of prostate cancer and not penile cancer?



Frank
post #32 of 33
And penile cancer is mostly found in elderly men, right? So anything could have caused it. ANYTHING that happened to them during their lifetime. How can anyone say it's definitely having a foreskin that caused it? Especially since it's so rare, it's not like you have a huge population to study all the variables.
post #33 of 33
I have no reason to believe that character, as it has turned out form my conversation with him, he doesn't even know elementary things about the foreskin. It's entirely possible he's confusing cancer of prostate with cancer of penis on purpose to make his point that foreskins cause disease and should be amputated.
I actually contacted a Latvian cancer website and asked them for number of cases a year. We'll see what they say!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Case Against Circumcision
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › so.. are there really arguments on both sides...??