Had routine circumcision been in place-48% reduction in STD's

I am going to post this in its own thread because the other thread on circumcision has went all over the place. A 25 year study shows that had circumcision been routine there would have been a 48% reduction in STD's. The benefits of circumcision are becoming more defined as time goes on.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15593753/

 

my kidz r gettin da krew kut

 

total bullshit..cause routine circumsision IS in place and its made no difference at all
and logicaly it would have no effect

if that was true std's would be very low since probly 95% are cut and theres no real evidence that not being cut has any effects on stds

seems like your just tryin to start more drama

 

How am I starting drama by posting a article about a scientific study? I am not for or against circumcision but for freedom of choice. If you want to refute it post up a contradictory study not your opinion. By the way the rate of circumcision is no where near 95% not even in America. It is closer to around 50%.

 

come on..its way way higher in the us then 50%
maybe 85%
anyone whos ever been in any lockerroom knows that..maybe 1 in 20 isn't circumcized
your not promoting choice, your quoting bogus studies to justify your choice
personaly i dont care enough about the subject to bother looking up studies, but i know theres no real health benifits either way
and simple logic tells you theres no way possible it would ever effect the std rates

 

how are these bogus studies taken by MEDICAL DOCTORS. I think its bull that people who are soo against circumcision refuse to look @ PROOF by medically trained professionals!

 

dont listen to him, his "%'s" are pulled out of the nappy dreads that flop around on his head.

in any case, the results of this study do not seem to be that farfetched.. for a small fold of skin that withholds liquids allowing them to stagnate and marinate around your penis.... to help potentiate the chance of the exchange of contaminated bodily fluids.

 

Heres the deal:

1. Circumcision does help prevent std's, studys show so.

2. There is no need for circumcision just to prevent an std.

 

Look at the stats: In the US it has been right around 60-66% for decades. Look here. It was higher in the 70's.
http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/

I didn't make the choice in my case, my parents did. I didn't make the choice for my children because I have two girls.

Thats fine don't read up on the studies or the evidence but don't try to call them bogus unless you have something besides your personal opinion to back that up. I am truely for personal choice, just not for hiding the studies either. I really could care less whether anyone has it done or not, just thought it was interesting.

 

Funny cause that study right there says the opposite.

 

365 boys over 25 years from New Zealand, wow what amazing science.

 

365 is not too small of a sample size. As the sample size goes down it is harder to find statistical significance. Statistical significance is what defines statistic related science. If the sample size was too low they would be unable to show statistical significance. Of coarse you would have to look at the data from the actual study data not from an article reporting results to see what kind of P-Value they were looking at and at what Alpha they were using. I have a degree in Stats so I understand it well.

 

Correlation is a long way away from cause and effect.

 

Cause and effect can not be shown with out correlation so whats your point. The study did not say that every Uncircumcised man would develop an STD so yea they aren't even trying to say there is a cause and effect situation there.

 

They compared 365 uncircumsized boys with 154 circumsized boys in this study. That's how I read the article.

 

There’s so much shit going on about circumcision. Can we just drop it? Each side wants it side to be right, and it's just old. No, fluid doesn't get stuck in the foreskin of the penis and go stagnant. And no, they aren't dirtier. Obviously, since we are born with a foreskin, there is some purpose to it. It’s like tonsils. They have a purpose, but can be removed. I mean, suppose I found a study saying female circumcision would reduce std's by 60%? Would you get behind that? Would you advocate the circumcision of women? I’m assuming not. I’m not against circumcision. To each their own. If you're going to have a baby boy, research the facts, weigh the pros and cons, and then make your own decisions. I honestly think it would be easier to hand out free condemns to guys to slow the spread of std's, instead of cutting all of the men and hoping they don't catch something. But that's me.

 

Your wrong, read the other thread. The foreskin does manifest a fluid byproduct and its medical term is smegma, look it up.

 

Ok, for some reason there are about 200 'Circumcision' threads going on and this one is just promoting the same 'survey' again.

Look, I really wish some of you would just stop and think about what you are saying.
Please.
Stop and think....

You are actually suggesting that - as a way to avoid an STD a man should have the protective skin removed off his glans.
So that,
The glans will harden (kerotenise, leather over, turn waxy, whatever you say) and that THIS will make it more difficult for the virus to stick too or get through.
WOW.
Just wow.
Just think through this 'logic' and amaze yourself at how backwards that thinking has to be.

But these statistics are bogus anyways but Im just saying its beyond all comprehension we would even think of 'protecting' ourselves by damaging something.
Remove womens labia and I suppose they have a 100% less chance of getting an STD on their labia wouldnt they!
Nobel Prize Please!

I really dont know how to tell people this but this is not some sort of 'mystery' that 'science is still investigating'.
Men all over the planet are born with a full penis and skin which ingeniously folds over the sensitive glans when not-erect.
In Japan,
In Germany,
In China,
Everywhere.
This has been going on since men existed and it has worked just fine thanks.

btw: Smegma is another name for 'Soap'.
Besides having ANTIBacterial qualities its nothing more than 100% natural skin oils and skin cells.
Guess who has 'Smegma'... ALL Mammals, Male and Female.

What is a possible problem with Smegma... well if you dont wash yourself with any sort of freaking regularity at all then you 'might' get some sort of infection.

Who the hell doesnt wash themselves?
Once again I ask everyone to stop and bloody well think of how retarded you have to be to actually need to circumcise your penis or vagina 'in case' you one day stop washing yourself long enough to get a bacterial infection!
Wow!
If you are so absolutely retarded and criminally neglectful that you actually need to amputate your son (or daughters) foreskins because you cant even bother to teach them about water....
... you should NOT be allowed to have children in the first place.

Amazing.

 

it seems like the survey is just documenting the reduction in STD's, not analyzing the reasons for it which may be even unknown... not just hte leathering of the glans.

Also the main fear for me, of my children, is of the foreskin tightening up over time causing them to have to get adult circumcisions which are extremely painful operations. this naturally occuring problem can even cause erectile disfunction, and is documented around the world.

http://www.circinfo.com/an_account.html

 

1. Priapism, (what you are talking about) is a very rare condition. Removing the foreskin, to "prevent" priapism, is like removing your healthy intestines, "because colon cancer is so painful.......if you get it."
2. "extremely painful?" in adults? Yeah, but if it is neccesary, they know WHY. Circing a baby is EXTREMELY painful, and not only is adequate anethsia never used,(no, Tylenol and what amounts to a few mls of Ambesol is not enough to prevent or treat the pain of having up to more than half of the skin of your penis removed, as well as the pain of tearing the Frenulum to get at the foreskin) the child has NO idea why one of the first things done to him in the world is an attack of his penis. Some babies get circed before they even get the warmth of their mother's arms or a belly full of milk. Poor babies.