Mothering › Forums › Health › The Case Against Circumcision › getting emailed at work re:new study
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

getting emailed at work re:new study  

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
I work for an insurance co and health info is always on our internal web page. My co-workers know I will not circ and they dont express that I am crazy, but at the same time find every opportunity to email me pro-circ stuff that come out on the site. There was one yesterday about circ'd males contracting less STD's. I will have to email it home and post it here if you havent seen it. It is of course rediculous but threatened that the APA should reconsider its stand on recommending circ for each boy. REDICULOUS!!

After I have bashed them on the theory that non circd males are just as clean as circ'd they go on to justify thier decisions for reasons of "dont you think the penis looks better circ'd"? Now they are back to medical reasons.

I can hold my own and am sticking to my decision, just wanted to vent....will post later on the new study so we can all have a good go at it :
post #2 of 15
Even if circ does reduce the risk of catching STDs, and this is not certain b/c if it is the study I think, they simply ASKED the men whether they had a disease, so not very scientific, would you send your son out to have unprotected sex? Playing russian roulette is still dangerous whether you have 2 bullets in the gun or 3. So if you are going to have to wear condoms anyway, might as well keep your foreskin and actually get some pleasure out of it.

On a side note, I don't know if I would be able to put up with that sort of crap at work, esp. the comments bordering on sexual ("don't you like the way a circ'ed penis looks?").
post #3 of 15
The study's author himself noted that with the data they used, you'd have to perform 20 circs to prevent 1 STD. That's ASSuming his study is correct.

Ask your colleagues to look up comparative rates of STDs in the US vs. other developed countries, where circ is almost unknown. Then ask how the US has "benefited" from an almost universal rate of adult circ.
post #4 of 15
Thread Starter 

here's the article I mentioned

And I so agree.... this is so lame.... but it's what people read and believe. It's hard working in a mainstream environment sometimes....

News Review From Harvard Medical School -- Circumcision May Reduce STDs
Being circumcised may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) by half, researchers say. A study from New Zealand tracked 510 babies through age 25. The circumcised males had lower STD rates, USA Today reported. The study was published November 6 in the journal Pediatrics.


By Henry H. Bernstein, D.O.
Harvard Medical School



What Is the Doctor's Reaction?

Every year, more than 1 million newborn boys are circumcised. In this surgical procedure, the foreskin that covers the tip of the penis is removed.

Parents may choose to have their sons circumcised for religious, health, or cultural reasons. Other parents say no because they feel there isn't any good reason or medical need to have it done.

A new study in this month's journal Pediatrics provides further evidence that circumcision may reduce the risk of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases). It's thought that the area under the foreskin of uncircumcised males may be a good place for infections to occur.

The study followed more than 500 newborns in New Zealand from birth until age 25. Males who were circumcised were far less likely to report infection with an STD.

Researchers also looked at other things that increase the risk of STDs. These included how often the men used condoms, how many sexual partners they had had, and their family backgrounds. Even allowing for these risks, circumcised men still had lower rates of STDs.

Circumcision reduces the rate of urinary tract infections in young babies. It also reduces the rate of penile cancer in men. Both of these conditions are much rarer than STDs, however.

Most importantly, this study adds more evidence that circumcision may have valuable health benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure.


What Changes Can I Make Now?

It is a parent's choice whether or not to have a new baby boy circumcised. Whatever you think about circumcision, it is key that you make an informed decision.

The most important thing you can do is learn all about circumcision. Talk with your baby's doctor about the benefits and risks, so you fully understand the procedure.

The possible benefits include:

Lower risk of penile cancer
Fewer STDs
Fewer urinary tract infections in the first year of life
Reduced chance of HIV/AIDS
No "extra" cleaning of areas around and under the foreskin
The possible risks of circumcision include:

Bleeding at the site
Pain associated with the surgery
Infection
A cut that needs stitches
A reaction to the numbing medicine used
Another study of more than 350,000 male newborns suggested that circumcision is relatively safe. The study found that some complication occurred in 1 of every 476 circumcisions. Most of these were minor.


What Can I Expect Looking to the Future?

It may be time for the experts to look again closely at the evidence about circumcision. Perhaps the American Academy of Pediatrics should reconsider its 1999 statement opposing routine circumcision of baby boys. The statement suggests that the scientific evidence at that time did not clearly support routine circumcision.

Long-term studies on the benefits and risks of circumcision are also likely. Other researchers may study the best way to limit the pain of circumcision for newborns.
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirky View Post
The study's author himself noted that with the data they used, you'd have to perform 20 circs to prevent 1 STD. That's ASSuming his study is correct.

Ask your colleagues to look up comparative rates of STDs in the US vs. other developed countries, where circ is almost unknown. Then ask how the US has "benefited" from an almost universal rate of adult circ.
:

Ask them why the US has the highest circ rate in the world yet also has the highest HIV rate in all developed countries.
post #6 of 15
I notice they don't include less-pleasurable sex or difficulties in marriage as "risks". :

I hate that those constructing these junk medicine "studies" never ever include factors like sugar/refined food consumption and such. It's a known fact that those things drastically change immune response, and so ability to fight off infections of all sorts.

But it only gets said in glossy terms in the stupid news health alerts something like: The most important thing you can do is eat a diet of whole food and cut down on white flour and sugar.

But never when the rubber meets the road on these bogus studies do they factor that stuff in.

[/rant]
post #7 of 15
OP - the authors of the New Zealand study retracted their recommendations after the peer review. here is the link and a quote from the author's statement. Send this to the people who are pushing this study on you.


http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...18/5/1971#4725



Quote:
These discrepancies with our findings are too large to be disregarded, and we are of the view that it would be premature to use our findings to promote the view that circumcision reduces risks of less severe forms of STI, until further research clarifying this issue is conducted.
BTW - of course the US media trumpeted this '25 year study of 50% decrease in STDs', but no news org reported when the authors quietly retracted their recommendations. :
post #8 of 15
We are not speaking accurately when calling that AIDS in Africa
pseudo science of Halperin's a "study" . It is not science. It is not
a study. It is a sham that has been refused publication in peer
reviewed medical journals. Can we please call it what it is ---crap,
useless, falsehoods, nonsense. We're about to get a whole bunch more
Reuters news about it because Daniel's been travelling to Israel and
enrolling those who would "help" in Africa to sharpen their knives.
Pleeeaaassseeeee , do not honour his bull by calling it a "study".
Baybee
post #9 of 15
Thread Starter 

couldnt open the link

I couldnt open this... would be interested in reading! Diane



OP - the authors of the New Zealand study retracted their recommendations after the peer review. here is the link and a quote from the author's statement. Send this to the people who are pushing this study on you.


http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...18/5/1971#4725
post #10 of 15
try it this time - I had some wierd 'work offline' default on my computer..

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...18/5/1971#4725
post #11 of 15
Why are they harassing you with these e-mail's? Simply because you have an opposing opinion? Do they benefit from changing your mind?
post #12 of 15
Thread Starter 
not really harrassing, as I see it. We had a discussion once on it and now that I am having a boy, it came up again and of course I said I was absolutely not doing it. So when this article came up someone sent it to me as FYI look at this one. I am compiling some research against this case and will email my teammates with it. They could care less how I feel, one person got grossed out the other day because I said I was going to bring home my placenta and plant my fig tree along with it in the spring. Another thinks I should name my kid "organic" and that I am crazy b/c I plan to CD and have natural childbirth. I have my views and dont mind imposing them on people and I learn what thier opinions are and somewhere along the way they learn some things...and ask some questions. Just a typical environment. I just see this as an opportunity to bring the issue up and remind people that it should not be a routine thing.
Thanks for all the feedback on this... I cant wait to send my email and stir it up in here again.
post #13 of 15
I dont see many newborn infants getting STDs. even if all those studies are correct, the procedure can wait until one is old enough to consent to it.
post #14 of 15
Check out this table, which shows numerous studies about circ/STD contraction rates:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...18/5/1971#4694

Hardly in favor of circ'ing. The last one in the table is the Christchurch findings showing that circ *may* decrease chances of contracting STDs. The person who put up the table was showing how opposite that finding was compared to the other studies on the same topic. And like a PP said, even they admit that their numbers shouldn't be used to advocate for circ at this point in time.
post #15 of 15
Thread Starter 
I so agree. And the more I think about it the more the article/research sounds so ignorant to me. So what is the general population supposed to get out of this? That you should circ your boys so that they are less likely to contract an std? Duh, you would still need to educate them on safe sex, morality, etc. Why even study this? It's not like circ'd males cant get an std, so what the heck is the point? What's wrong with society that they would take this and use it to see the pros of circ'ing?
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 › getting emailed at work re:new study