Ugh... latest study in favor of circ! - Mothering Forums

Thread Tools
#1 of 6 Old 03-12-2012, 12:38 PM - Thread Starter
tuhraycee's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is all over the news today:



From New York Times (but go to Google News and you'll see a bunch...)

March 12, 2012

Prevention: Prostate Risk Is Lower After Circumcision

A new analysis has found evidence that circumcision may reduce the risk for prostate cancer.

Researchers studied 1,754 men with prostate cancer and 1,654 controls in King County, Wash. They asked the men if they were circumcised and if they had ever had a sexually transmitted infection. The investigators also gathered information on prostate cancer from a tumor registry.

The study, published on Monday in the journal Cancer, controlled for age, race, a family history of prostate cancer and other factors. The scientists found that circumcision before first sexual intercourse was associated with a 15 percent lower risk for prostate cancer.

There is evidence for the role of germs in the development of several cancers — cervical, liver and stomach cancer among them. And there is good evidence that circumcision can reduce rates of sexually transmitted diseases. Sexually transmitted germs have been found in the prostate, including chlamydia, H.I.V., and HPV.

Although the exact mechanism remains unknown, the authors suggest that circumcision eliminates the possibility of germs flourishing in the moist environment under the foreskin, and reduces the chance for infection.

“These are observational data that don’t prove causality,” said the lead author, Dr. Jonathan L. Wright, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Washington. “But there is some role for inflammation in several cancers, and this helps bolster that argument.”



What is this going to do to any progress we've made convincing people that circ isn't necessary? Seems like they churn out these 'studies' every few years.

WOHM to a March 2004 kiddo and a November 2010 toddler. stillheart.gif

tuhraycee is offline  
Sponsored Links
#2 of 6 Old 03-12-2012, 02:58 PM
Tobeborn's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This is a good rebuttal:

A + B = B nut.gif (10/05) & C joy.gif (03/09) 
Tobeborn is offline  
#3 of 6 Old 03-13-2012, 12:29 PM
bugmenot's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 297
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

They do crank these "studies" out every few years. And what's more is that most of the "studies" seem to come from Africa. Yeah, let's take a country with (apparently) rampant HIV, rampant sex, and circumcise them like crazy... yet, it doesn't seem to be doing anything, DOES IT?


Let's take a country like Sweden or England with low circumcision rates... how are their AIDS rates?



I guess the silver lining is that by the pro-circ'ers changing their "circumcision prevents ____" every few years, we have them running. They're running to claim new things because deep down inside, they must know that circumcision doesn't do what they claim, so they invent new things.

bugmenot is offline  
#4 of 6 Old 03-13-2012, 12:56 PM
TiredX2's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: it appears to be a handbasket
Posts: 19,789
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

First, to be clear, I am NOT pro-circumcision.  I very much am against RIC (of both males and females).  That said

Originally Posted by Tobeborn View Post

This is a good rebuttal:

Why did you find that rebuttal compelling?  I found it disingenuous--- it attacked the original article saying that it could be *correlation* instead of causation and then made an argument entirely based on correlation!



TiredX2 is offline  
#5 of 6 Old 03-13-2012, 02:20 PM
littlest birds's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: a dream-filled fixer-upper
Posts: 2,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The original article admits that it is only correlation, so the rebuttal helps clarify specific weaknesses in that this article is making correlations seem more definitive than they are --specifically applied to this subject. 


The rebuttal seems to be pointing out glaring weaknesses in the article... I must be missing some glaring weaknesses in the rebuttal.  Now the rebuttal does not prove the original wrong, or that circ has no such benefit, it only points to the weaknesses without itself proving anything about circ one way or the other.  Still, that study is so very flimsy, and I appreciate the bigger picture perspective of the rebuttal.

Tobeborn likes this.

ME&treehugger.gifHE... loving our: wild.gifdd(18) ~~violin.gifds(13) read.gifdd(13)~~ peace.gifdd(10)

littlest birds is offline  
#6 of 6 Old 03-14-2012, 06:22 AM
weiluonika's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: South Florida
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

This study finds that STDs are linked to prostate cancer, and then tries to mold that into "circumcision prevents STDs (which it doesn't,) so since STDs cause prostate cancer, circumcision must prevent it!" Ridiculous. The foreskin isn't dirty, it is self cleaning and has its own flora.

lactivist.gifintactivist.gif, crunchy wife and mama to big Michael and baby Michael stillheart.gif  We saynovax.gifand signcirc1.gif but we love cd.gifslingboy.gif and familybed1.gif.  Currently exclusively pumping 1pump.gif but hoping to bfinfant.gifsuccessfully soon!

weiluonika is offline  


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 15,887

33 members and 15,854 guests
agentofchaos , bananabee , Boodah'smama , Catholic Mama , CricketVS , Dakotacakes , Deborah , Dovenoir , emmy526 , etsdtm99 , happy-mama , Iron Princess , jamesmorrow , Janeen0225 , Katherine73 , LadyAnnibal , LibraSun , lisak1234 , Lydia08 , manyhatsmom , Michele123 , MountainMamaGC , NaturallyKait , pokeyac , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , samaxtics , scaramouche131 , Skippy918 , Springshowers , sren , zavierchick
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.