 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / January 2006HIV Study Done On US Military Personnel: No HIV-circ link
HIV Study Done On US Military Personnel -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....Shows that there is no benefit to being circumcised on infection rates: http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/s...ract_id=2176002 (The XV International AIDS Conference, 2004) Abstract: Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population A G Thomas, L N Bakhireva, S K Brodine, R A Shaffer Naval Health Research Center, DHAPP, San Diego, CA, United States P.O. Box 85122 "Background: Lack of male circumcision has been found to be a risk factor for HIV and sexually transmitted infection (STI) in several studies performed in developing countries. However, the few studies conducted in developed nations have yielded inconsistent results. Policy regarding circumcision of male infants as a prevention measure against HIV/STI remains a controversial topic. This study describes the prevalence of circumcision and its association with HIV and STI in a U.S. military population. Methods: This is a case-control study of male HIV infected U.S. military personnel (n= 232) recruited from 7 military medical centers and male U.S. Navy controls (n=516) from a general aircraft carrier population. Cases and controls completed similar self-administered HIV behavioral risk surveys. Case circumcision status was abstracted from medical charts while control status was reported on the survey. Cases and controls were frequency matched on age. Multiple logistic regressions were constructed separately to evaluate the role of circumcision in the acquisition of HIV and STI. Results: The proportion of circumcised men did not significantly differ between cases (84.9%) and controls (81.8%). Prevalence of circumcision among men born in the U.S. was higher (85.0%) than those born elsewhere (58.1%). After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors lack of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV (OR = 0.9; 95% CI: 0.51, 1.7) or STI (OR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.52, 2.26). The odds of HIV infection were 2.6 higher for irregular condom users, 5 times as high for those reporting STI, 6.2 times higher for those reporting anal sex, 2.8-3.2 times higher for those with 2-7+ partners, nearly 3 times higher for Blacks, and 3.5 times as high for men who were single or divorced/separated. Conclusions: Although there may be other medical or cultural reasons for male circumcision, it is not associated with HIV or STI prevention in this U.S. military population." http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=396885 >HIV Study Done On US Military Personnel: No HIV-circ link Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- when he has uncritically rejected the 30 + studies from all over the world that DO show a link between foreskins and HIV? In particular, he rejects out of hand the findings of the only random control trial on the subject: Male Circumcision Thwarts HIV Infection 5 AUGUST 2005 VOL 309 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org A study in South Africa has shown for the first time that circumcising adult men can dramatically lower their risk of becoming infected by HIV through heterosexual sex. "It is a major advance in HIV-prevention studies," said Catherine Hankins, an associate director at the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). For nearly 20 years, observational studies have suggested that circumcision protects men from HIV infection, but until now, there was no prospective evidence to support that conclusion. The new study, led by clinician Bertran Auvert of the University of Versailles in Saint- Quentin, France, began in August 2003 with more than 3000 uncircumcised men between 18 and 24 years old from the Orange Farm Township near Johannesburg. Half the participants were circumcised at the trial's outset. As Auvert reported last week at an international AIDS meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the study was stopped early, in November 2004, after an interim analysis showed that "the protection effect of male circumcision was so high that it would have been unethical to continue." The study, performed in collaboration with Adrian Puren of South Africa's National Institute for Communicable Diseases and funded by France's Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA (ANRS), suggests that circumcision can offer 65% protection from infection. Only 18 men in the circumcised group acquired new HIV infections, as opposed to 51 in the uncircumcised group. Further bolstering the results, men in the circumcised group reported 18% more sexual contacts than controls. "It's extremely exciting," says King Holmes, an expert in sexually transmitted diseases at the University of Washington, Seattle. "It's essentially an anatomic vaccine for life." Circumcision could profoundly curtail the spread of HIV in sub- Saharan Africa. Circumcision practices vary greatly from country to country, and studies have shown that the regions with the worst AIDS epidemics have the lowest circumcision rates. >>HIV Study Done On US Military Personnel: No HIV-circ link > > Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting > no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- > when he has uncritically rejected the 30 + studies from all over the > world that DO show a link between foreskins and HIV? HIV is so rare among straight White Europeans that these "studies" are meaningless. Studies performed on black Africans, who unlike Caucasians, have no natural immunity to the AIDS virus are not relevant. At least 10% and as high as 25% of Europeans have the Delta 38 gene mutation which effectively protects a person from AIDS (no receptors to allow virus into cell) Look at the mortality tables, not the data on who's "infected" and you'll see that almost all the deaths are either homosexuals or persons who have used contaminated needles. The probability of a man contracting AIDS from a female is nil. > In particular, he rejects out of hand the findings of the only random > control trial on the subject: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > 18% more sexual contacts than > controls. That's nonsense when you consider that the circumcised men would need a period of time to heal from the surgery. And who were in the control group? No it wasn't the other uncircumcised men. "It's extremely exciting," > says King Holmes, an expert in > sexually transmitted diseases at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the worst AIDS epidemics have the lowest circumcision > rates. That is not correct. >>>HIV Study Done On US Military Personnel: No HIV-circ link >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >effectively protects a person from AIDS (no receptors to allow virus into >cell) Utter complete preening bullshit. It's delta-32 first of all, homozygous expression may confer some resistance to infection but it is hardly a guarantee and the allele's expression (or lack thereof) is much less than what you claim. George M. Carter plus, that Aftican study did not even examine the patients for their circumcision status. we all know that not everyone gets their circumcision status right when you ask them, and don't check. www.jdl.org.il > www.jdl.org.il Yes, it's funny how these yids always put down this ficticious year as if some old yahoodies sat down 5000+ years ago and said "well let's make this year 1 ok boys" haha These calendars mean nothing and were made retroactively and give an entirely distorted picture of different cultures. The current Gregorian calendar was also deployed retroactively after Pope Gregory (whatever number he was) updated the leap year calculation in the now-1600's. He calculated when day one would have been and deployed the new calendar. So what's the difference between whether the Hebrew calendar dates back 5000 or the Gregorian dates back 2000? Three thousand? http://www.catholicleague.org/ LOL > plus, that Aftican study did not even examine the patients for their > circumcision status. we all know that not everyone gets their > circumcision status right when you ask them, and don't check. The researchers circumcised half of the subjects, so if there was any significant misreporting of circumcision status they would surely have noticed. > > plus, that Aftican study did not even examine the patients for their > > circumcision status. we all know that not everyone gets their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > significant misreporting of circumcision status they would surely have > noticed. I didn't notice in the study, but was the HIV/AIDS status of the participants checked prior to, or after the study? It seems like a lot of folks are walking around with the virus and many other STD's and don't even know it, or care to know. Especially in countries without the medical advancements of many western nations. > I didn't notice in the study, but was the HIV/AIDS status of the > participants checked prior to, or after the study? It seems like a lot of > folks are walking around with the virus and many other STD's and don't even > know it, or care to know. Especially in countries without the medical > advancements of many western nations. Of course it was. You really need to read up on research methodology and at least find out what a random controled trial is. >>I didn't notice in the study, but was the HIV/AIDS status of the >>participants checked prior to, or after the study? It seems like a lot of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course it was. You really need to read up on research methodology > and at least find out what a random controled trial is. The skin freaks just don't want to know that stuff. They need to remain ignorant as to what the real implication of the findings of the RCT are. Of course they are beside themselves with anxiety over the developments in Swaziland as adult males begin to line up for voluntary circumcisons. Read this skin freaks ... and weep: ===================================== Global Challenges | Washington Post Examines Use of Circumcision in Swaziland To Prevent HIV Transmission [Jan 03, 2006] The Washington Post on Dec. 26, 2005, examined the "dramatic and swift" shift in attitudes toward circumcision in Swaziland, which has one of the world's lowest rates of the practice and one of the highest HIV prevalence rates. Although circumcision was "once widely viewed as unmanly," it is making a "sudden comeback" in the country since the publication of a South African study that finds the practice could reduce the risk of contracting HIV (Timberg, Washington Post, 12/26/05 ). According to the study, which was published in the November 2005 issue of PLoS Medicine, male circumcision might reduce the risk of men contracting HIV through sexual intercourse with women by about 60% (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 11/28/05). Hundreds of Swazi men have been circumcised in recent months, and hospitals that once rarely performed the procedure are circumcising 10 to 15 patients weekly and keeping two-month waiting lists, according to the Post. Circumcision advocates, UNICEF Swaziland representative Alan Brody, and USAID researcher and technical adviser Daniel Halperin have "aggressively pushed news" of the study by incorporating messages about the protective effects of circumcision into public education campaigns and meeting with Swazi physicians to discuss the research, the Post reports. In addition, Swazi legislator Marwick Khumalo advocates the practice in "Swazi terms" by telling parents that their paternal bloodline depends on protecting their sons from HIV. However, some circumcision advocates say that newly circumcised men might believe that they are "totally protected" from HIV and engage in high-risk sexual behavior, when in fact they are more vulnerable to HIV in the weeks after circumcision when the virus can enter the wound before it heals, the Post reports. Meeting Demand Some Swazi health care providers say that if the country's health system does not keep pace with the demand for circumcision, the surgery might increasingly be performed in "unhygienic, ritual settings or hastily established operating rooms," the Post reports. The country's health care system already is "overwhelmed" with providing HIV/AIDS care, distributing antiretroviral drugs and retaining its "short supply" of health care workers. To address the issue, Brody said that mobile military hospitals should be established in villages to provide circumcision at no cost to males between the ages of 10 and 24. "This is a crisis," Brody said, adding, "The science is in place to say, 'Let's move forward,' at least in Swaziland and also in most of Southern Africa. Let's not delay." However, the largest international supporters of HIV/AIDS prevention have "treated the results cautiously" and are waiting for results from similar studies in Uganda and Kenya before deciding whether to offer circumcision more widely in countries with high rates of HIV, the Post reports (Washington Post, 12/26/05). http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=34512 > > I didn't notice in the study, but was the HIV/AIDS status of the > > participants checked prior to, or after the study? It seems like a lot of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Of course it was. You really need to read up on research methodology > and at least find out what a random controled trial is. You still here, bitch? > >>HIV Study Done On US Military Personnel: No HIV-circ link > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > meaningless. Studies performed on black Africans, who unlike Caucasians, > have no natural immunity to the AIDS virus are not relevant. That's garbage. Even at best, only 14% of Scandinavians, and 5% of Mediterraneans would be protected by the CCR5-D32 gene. There is no genetic explanation in existance that would rationalize an epidemic in Africa, and the absence of an epidemic everywhere else. The fact that HIV tests are much less reliable in Africa than in Europe and North America is. Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > The fact that HIV tests are much less reliable in Africa than > in Europe and North America is. You think maybe it could be the water ? Perhaps the weather has strange effects on the tests in Africa, ...or those damned niggers f.ck up everything they touch ? > "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Perhaps the weather has strange effects on the > tests in Africa, Malaria. Leprosy. All these mycobacterial infections that occur almost exclusively in Africa and that create antibodies that make ELISA tests give false positive results. The exclusive use of pregnant women in ANC studies, when it is well known that pregnancy is one factor that causes false positive in LOTS of tests, including ELISA. The refusal to use confirmation tests like Western Blot, in addition to the ELISA screening test. Educate yourself, my son. Or go back to school. Alex "Alex" <avdeelen.REMOFETHIS1@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message > Malaria. Leprosy. All these mycobacterial infections that occur > almost exclusively in Africa Lets not be steamrolled by the wheels of progress in that statement. Centeral America, South America, Southern America and Southeast Asia have malaria. Perhaps you meant to say South Africa above. > and that create antibodies that make > ELISA tests give false positive results. Anti-carbohydrate antibodies Naturally-occurring antibodies Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies) Leprosy Tuberculosis Mycobacterium avium Systemic lupus erythematosus Renal (kidney) failure Hemodialysis/renal failure Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients Flu Flu vaccination Herpes simplex I Herpes simplex II Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu) Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines Pregnancy in multiparous women Malaria High levels of circulating immune complexes Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis Rheumatoid arthritis Hepatitis B vaccination Tetanus vaccination Organ transplantation Renal transplantation Anti-lymphocyte antibodies Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy) Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies) Autoimmune diseases : Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections Malignant neoplasms (cancers) Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease Primary sclerosing cholangitis Hepatitis "Sticky" blood (in Africans) Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits) Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions Multiple myeloma HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens) Anti-smooth muscle antibody Anti-parietal cell antibody Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody) Anti-Hbc IgM Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 Haemophilia Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma Primary biliary cirrhosis Stevens-Johnson syndrome9 Q-fever with associated hepatitis Heat-treated specimens Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids Haemolyzed serum Hyperbilirubinemia Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups) Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions Normal human ribonucleoproteins Other retroviruses Anti-mitochondrial antibodies Anti-nuclear antibodies Anti-microsomal antibodies T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies Proteins on the filter paper Epstein-Barr virus Visceral leishmaniasis Receptive anal sex are known to give false positives, but that wasn't your point was it? You were looking for something more exclusive to Africa > Educate yourself, my son. Or go back to school. >>HIV Study Done On US Military Personnel: No HIV-circ link > > Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting > no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- > when he has uncritically rejected the 30 + studies from all over the > world that DO show a link between foreskins and HIV? A series of flawed studies that don't even track participants sexual partners and sexual behaviour should be believed as concrete evidence? Hmm...? > In particular, he rejects out of hand the findings of the only random > control trial on the subject: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > the worst AIDS epidemics have the lowest circumcision > rates. > > Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting > > no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > partners and sexual behaviour should be believed as concrete evidence? > Hmm...? What are you saying -- that the reason uncut males had higher HIV rates in over thirty different studies is that their sexual partners and sexual behavior were different from cut males? If not, what are you saying? > > > Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting > > > no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What are you saying -- that the reason uncut males had higher HIV rates > in over thirty different studies And there have been multiple well designed studies, like the one mentioned in the header, that do not show an advantage to being cut. I do not see any reason to be so dogmatic about this one way or the other. I mean, there may well be circumstances where an intact foreskin is a liability and others where it is not. Environmental, genetic, and pathogen interactions are no doubt complex. Disease organisms use different methods to sneak past the skin. In the population and hygenic environment of sub-saharan africa, a foreskin might be a liability from the standpoint of HIV entry. I see no reason to rule out the possibility and several reasons to suspect that it is solidly true. On the other hand, not every place is like Burundi in these particulars. There are many places in the world that have low circ rates and extremely low rates of female to male transmission - which is the only relevant thing to look at. There should be room for flexibilty on how one responds to different studies, therefore. It should be OK to use our minds. IOWs, if I lived in Burundi I would circ everything including my cattle. I would probably keep a strict kosher kitchen as well even without any religion behind it. But considering where and how most First World people live, I dunno. The motivation is lacking. is that their sexual partners and > sexual behavior were different from cut males? If not, what are you > saying? >> > > Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study >> > > suggesting [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > IOWs, if I lived in Burundi I would circ everything including my > cattle. I would probably keep a strict kosher kitchen as well That's totally stupid. OK go circ your cattle just like Abraham lol even > without any religion behind it. But considering where and how most > First World people live, I dunno. The motivation is lacking. > > is that their sexual partners and >> sexual behavior were different from cut males? If not, what are you >> saying? >>>>Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting >>>>no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > And there have been multiple well designed studies, like the one > mentioned in the header, that do not show an advantage to being cut. Interesting that you don't care to mention them. How many? ALSO 30 odd? Or 1 or 2 or 3? > >>>>Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting > >>>>no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Interesting that you don't care to mention them. Actually, this thread began with a referrence to a large scale study done on US military personnel that revealed no protective effect in regard to HIV. I suppose that one could argue that the US Army Medical Corp is incompetent at designing a study, even one in which they have a high degree of control over the subjects, or one could strain ones imagination to include the notion that revelant conditions in sub-saharan africa are quite different than in the US and the clean parts of Europe. After all, in the parts of the world where baasic hygeine is understood, the female to male transmission of HIV is really, really rare. If you did not know this you stop for a moment to think about it because it is a fact that mutilates the point of your argument - unless you are interested solely in the situation in third world sh.t holes.. > How many? ALSO 30 odd? Or 1 or 2 or 3? On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:00:39 -0800, rdubose wrote: >> >>>>Now, why would Taylor uncritically accept this single study suggesting >> >>>>no link between foreskins and HIV in a select US military population -- [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > because it is a fact that mutilates the point of your argument - unless > you are interested solely in the situation in third world sh.t holes.. Well, why speculate when the facts are in front of us? Q. What was the study design? A. Case-control. Q. How does this design compare to others? A. "Case control studies are less reliable than either randomized controlled trials or cohort studies." http://servers.medlib.hscbklyn.edu/ebm/2500.htm Q. Were cases and controls drawn from similar populations? A. No. Cases attended a military medical centre, while controls were on an aircraft carrier (a closed environment). Q. Were the key variables determined in a consistent way? A. No. Medical records were used for cases, while questionnaires were used for controls. Q. Did the study have sufficient power to detect a difference? A. Unclear. The study was relatively small, and use of multivariate analysis further reduced the effective size and consequently power, thus raising the chances of a false negative. >> How many? ALSO 30 odd? Or 1 or 2 or 3? > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:00:39 -0800, rdubose wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > reduced the effective size and consequently power, thus raising the > chances of a false negative. Oh jake now you have gone and exposed the rank dishonesty of the skin freaks again. PS: did you notice that this particular skin freak failed to answer the question as to just how many of their so-called "well designed studies" there have in fact been? Predictable skin freak behaviour. Is the behavior of the alleged 'skin freak' any more predictable than the behavior of a 'scar fetishist' like yourself? > > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:00:39 -0800, rdubose wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > Oh jake now you have gone and exposed the rank dishonesty of the skin > freaks again. First of all, I do not readily see where I have committed a dishonest act. Anyone reading over the literature on this subject quickly realizes that many studies have found no protective effect. Are any of these studies free of any short-comings? No. Are there many epidemiological studies in general that cannot be similarly criticized? No. If for you the only acceptable meaning of "well designed studies" in the medical world is limited to "perfectly air tight" you will wait years between them. But that is not the problem it would seem because if the advantage of a drug or treatment option cannot be found without massive double-blinded studies that advantage is usually not worth bothering with, especially if the proposed option is costly or painful. The advances that turn out to be worth the effort have in practice not been hard to discern. Good results stand up clear of the back-ground noise. Antibiotics, statins, viagra, etc. gave results that were noticed very quickly. Part of the background noise here is that female to male HIV transmission in the uncirced parts of Northern Europe is quite rare. Which makes it kind of hard to demonstrate a benefit to doing the opposite. Second of all, doesn't it sometimes strike you as dumb to insult and demean someone as part of your attempt to sell them on the virtues of a surgical proceedure? As if acting that way will induce a feeling of trust or that their well being is your motivation??? > PS: did you notice that this particular skin freak failed to answer the > question as to just how many of their so-called "well designed studies" > there have in fact been? Predictable skin freak behaviour. >>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:00:39 -0800, rdubose wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > epidemiological studies in general that cannot be similarly criticized? > No. Skin freak, sadly you are now compounding your dishonesty. Anyone who reads the literature on this subject will quickly learn that the overwhelming findings (probably 10:1) find a protective effect for circumcision. Now if you dwell only on skin freak sites where the information is carefully selected to present the "minority" view and to attempt to trash the majority view it gives you away for what you really are. We are long past whether or not circumcision provides a protective effect against HIV infection and are now seeing whether the experts can agree whether this protective effect is such that circumcision can be promoted as one of the strategies in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Hence the RCTs that are underway at present. So skin freak you are way behind the game, who cares what some skin freak behind a computer with his shorts down around his ankles thinks about the methodology of studies where the findings do not support the object of his psychosexual fetish? The ball has started to roll in Africa, adult men are starting to queue at clinics and hospitals in Swaziland to be circumcised. Where will this all lead to? I can empathize with the desperation you skin freaks feel at the moment and witness the pathetic sadness of your King Canute type antics as to attempt to deny the facts and what will flow as a result. I suggest you invest in a little couch time with a professional to help you work through your problem, clearly you lunatics need such help. > If for you the only acceptable meaning of "well designed studies" > in the medical world is limited to "perfectly air tight" you will wait [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>question as to just how many of their so-called "well designed studies" >>there have in fact been? Predictable skin freak behaviour. >>>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:00:39 -0800, rdubose wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > attempt to trash the majority view it gives you away for what you really > are. The majority of the world is intact. YOU"RE the minority. > We are long past whether or not circumcision provides a protective effect > against HIV infection and are now seeing whether the experts can agree [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > methodology of studies where the findings do not support the object of his > psychosexual fetish? You're just another a.s f.cking jew homo. Stop your a.s f.cking and you'll see the rate of AIDS go down. The ball has started to roll in > Africa, adult men are starting to queue at clinics and hospitals in > Swaziland to be circumcised. Now, all these Negroes will think it's safe to go on a shagathon lol Where will this all lead to? I can > empathize with the desperation you skin freaks feel at the moment and > witness the pathetic sadness of your King Canute type antics as to attempt > to deny the facts and what will flow as a result. I suggest you invest in > a little couch time with a professional to help you work through your > problem, clearly you lunatics need such help. But not as crazy as those old yahoodies who circumcised everything including chickens lol >> If for you the only acceptable meaning of "well designed studies" >> in the medical world is limited to "perfectly air tight" you will wait [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >>>question as to just how many of their so-called "well designed studies" >>>there have in fact been? Predictable skin freak behaviour. > >>>On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:00:39 -0800, rdubose wrote: > >>> [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > attempt to trash the majority view it gives you away for what you really > are. "For what I really am??" I am just a guy who occasionally reads medical literature and tries to make sense of it. A more interesting question, by far, is who the f.ck are you? We are talking about a health care issue - you know, that is where people try to help other people - and your mode of debate is one long stream of insults lightly sprinkled with an occasional idea. Even if you were right about something (every now and then) nobody in their right mind would trust you to be their doctor - or giver of advice. > We are long past whether or not circumcision provides a protective > effect against HIV infection and are now seeing whether the experts can [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >>question as to just how many of their so-called "well designed studies" > >>there have in fact been? Predictable skin freak behaviour. >>Skin freak, sadly you are now compounding your dishonesty. Anyone who >>reads the literature on this subject will quickly learn that the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > right about something (every now and then) nobody in their right mind > would trust you to be their doctor - or giver of advice. My point stands. You have compounded your dishonesty by focussing narrowly on a minority opinion. Now you play the victim and thereby avoid having to address the issue of your selective focus. Why would an honest person ignore 30+ studies including an RCT and focus on a couple of dissenting findings? > >>Skin freak, sadly you are now compounding your dishonesty. Anyone who > >>reads the literature on this subject will quickly learn that the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > narrowly on a minority opinion. Now you play the victim and thereby > avoid having to address the issue of your selective focus. "Selective focus??" Of mine?? There are no National Medical Organizations in the developed world that agree with the idea of routine infant circumcision in their countries. Nor is that likely to change given the fact that apart from iv drug abuse and gay sex, they have basically no problem with HIV. In Scandanavian countries - where there is 1. Virtually no circs done 2. Lots of sex happening, and 3. Virtually zero female to male transmission of HV please tell me how you would convince them to change to your opinion on this. What broad focus thinking would you deploy to destroy their arguments? You seem to think that my emphasizing the point about female to male transmission is irrelevant or "selective". It is the whole question, actually. > Why would an honest person ignore 30+ studies including an RCT and focus > on a couple of dissenting findings? Exactly why HIV is spreading as it does in Africa needs some explaining. If one selectively and narrowly focuses on the question of circs in that peculiar context, you might have a case. But if one takes a really broad, worldwide view of things it makes no sense to tell Icelandic people, for example, to suddenly start doing a proceedure they have never done before to confer protection to men from a disease that does not spread in their society female to male. Broad minded Icelandic folk would look at you like you were nuts if you tried. Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the risks of circumcision. How about the American Cancer Society? Are they a bunch of skin freak? Please, don't ask us to accept studies which have not been fully peer reviewed by reputable medical organizations. Do you get off on writing stuff like this: "who cares what some skin freak behind a computer with his shorts down around his ankles thinks about the methodology of studies where the findings do not support the object of his psychosexual fetish?" What do you call people who actually have a "psychosexual fetish", like those in Circlist? > Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They > look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the > risks of circumcision. Actually, they don't state that, but they do say that they don't recommend routine circumcision. Do they deny every study that comes along indicating any benefit? No. Do they make wild claims about 'exquisitely sensitive' foreskins? No. Do they recommend against circumcision? No. > How about the American Cancer Society? Are > they a bunch of skin freak? The same ACS that states: "Recent studies have found that circumcised men are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted for differences in sexual behavior. Other studies suggest that circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors – poor hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking." > Please, don't ask us to accept studies > which have not been fully peer reviewed by reputable medical > organizations. Peer review is done before publication of a study. The medical organisations may or may not cite studies at a later date, but this has nothing to do with peer review. > Do you get off on writing stuff like this: > "who cares what some skin [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What do you call people who actually have a "psychosexual fetish", like > those in Circlist? What research has been done into such a fetish? Is it anything like this? http://www.circs.org/library/khan/index.html > > Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They > > look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > indicating any benefit? No. Do they make wild claims about 'exquisitely > sensitive' foreskins? No. Do they recommend against circumcision? No. There are one set of reasons that circs are not recommended - having to do with the lack of medical benefits - and there are another kind of reason s to not recommend against it - having to do with entirely non-medical issues. > > How about the American Cancer Society? Are > > they a bunch of skin freak? > > The same ACS that states: "Recent studies have found that circumcised men > are less likely to be infected with HPV, even after this risk is adjusted > for differences in sexual behavior. First of all, HPV is extremely common and generally transient and beniegn ( unless you get an unlucky subtype) And second it is impossible to adjust for differences in "sexual behaviour" because such studies only look at the things one does, not with whom one does them. There are social economic differences between circed vs uncirced that determine what type of woman one is in bed with. Other studies suggest that > circumcision may reduce the risk of more invasive forms of penile cancer. > However, it is important that the issue of circumcision not distract the > public's attention from avoiding known penile cancer risk factors - poor > hygiene, having unprotected sex with multiple partners (increasing the > likelihood of human papillomavirus infection), and cigarette smoking." It needs to be said that gay men might have a far stronger set of reasons to want to be circed than straight. Female to male transmission of HIV basically never happens unless the woman has a high viral count and the guy has open sores and even then there is probably a shared needle somewhere. But gays quite obviously pass every sort of virus in every direction with the things they do. Some disclosure might be in order. Are you arguuing for routine circs to protect straight guys from a non-existent threat(in the west) or to (possibly) make gay sex a little safer for yourself? Clarifying this would go a long way towards allowing someone to evaluate the supposed benefits you claim for circs. > > Please, don't ask us to accept studies > > which have not been fully peer reviewed by reputable medical [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > What research has been done into such a fetish? Is it anything like this? > http://www.circs.org/library/khan/index.html >>>Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They >>>look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > There are social economic differences between circed vs uncirced that > determine what type of woman one is in bed with. We can be more specific about the HPV/foreskin connection, so could you if you were honest enough to acknowledge that there is indeed information in studies available out there. Why do you choose to be selective with what you present? Are you pushing some foreskin agenda here? Are you a closet skin freak? ================================= Condom use and other factors affecting penile human papillomavirus detection in men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic. Baldwin SB, Wallace DR, Papenfuss MR, Abrahamsen M, Vaught LC, Giuliano AR. *Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona; the Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona; Arizona College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:: Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the primary cause of cervical, anal, and other anogenital cancers, but risk factors for penile HPV detection in men have not been well- characterized. GOAL:: The goal of this study was to identify correlates of penile HPV detection in ethnically diverse men attending a sexually transmitted disease clinic. STUDY:: A cross-sectional investigation was conducted among 393 men. Participants completed a risk-factor questionnaire and underwent testing for penile HPV DNA. Presence of HPV DNA was assessed using polymerase chain reaction with PGMY primers and reverse line blot genotyping. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify variables associated with any-type, oncogenic, and nononcogenic HPV. RESULTS:: Circumcision was associated with reduced risk for oncogenic, nononcogenic, and overall HPV. Regular condom use was associated with reduced risk for oncogenic and overall HPV. CONCLUSION:: These findings, if confirmed by other studies, could impact public health practices and messages regarding HPV. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15388997 ======================================================== Determinants of prevalence, acquisition, and persistence of human papillomavirus in healthy Mexican military men. Lajous M, Mueller N, Cruz-Valdez A, Aguilar LV, Franceschi S, Hernandez-Avila M, Lazcano-Ponce E. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is sexually transmitted, but the nature of the infection in males is poorly understood. We sought to identify determinants of HPV infection, acquisition, and persistence in 1,030 healthy military men in Mexico. METHODS: From July 2000 to July 2003, trained interviewers administered a questionnaire, conducted a genital examination, and collected samples. The presence of multiple HPV types in genital cells from the urethra, urethral meatus, scrotum, penile shaft, and coronal sulcus was evaluated. At baseline 1,030 participants and after 1-year follow-up 336 individuals were sampled using a highly sensitive DNA reverse blot strip assay. RESULTS: HPV prevalence was 44.6%; infection with high-risk types was observed in 34.8% participants and 51.1% were multiply infected. After 1-year follow-up, 165 men remained free of HPV, 68 cleared their infection, 45 acquired one, and 37 remained infected with the same HPV type. The period prevalence was 50.9%, the incidence rate was 17.9/1, 000 men-months [95% confidence interval (95% CI), 13.0-23.9], clearance was 54%, and persistence was 29.4%. At baseline, the number of partners before age 20 years, a history of a sexually transmitted disease, and the presence of condilomas significantly increased the association with HPV infection. Having anal intercourse with males was associated with the risk of acquiring a HPV infection (odds ratio, 5. 2; 95% CI, 1.2-23). The odds ratio for persistent infection was 0.10 (95% CI, 0-0.87) in men who reported being circumcised compared with those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: High-risk sexual behavior increases the risk of HPV infection in males, whereas circumcision may lower the risk of persistence. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16030106&query_hl=1 > >>>Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They > >>>look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > information in studies available out there. Why do you choose to be > selective with what you present? I merely point out that these studies - including the one you graciously provided, do not take into account the likely differences in the women these guys are with. If the guys in a study all slept with the same group of women the same number of times then there would be a lot more validity here. By the way, not so long ago, you were raving about the uselessness of the US Army study because of an imperfection in its design. I responded that studies in this field nearly always have shortcomings. Your favorite one here certainly does. The things that turn out to really work in medicine are not so hard to demonstrate a benefit for. This should matter if someone is purposes cutting off part of your dick. Are you pushing some foreskin agenda > here? Are you a closet skin freak? I am inclined to just leave little guys alone. You, apparently, are among those who are eager to pull their diapers off and mess with their genitals while their helpless little bodies lie strapped on a board. > ================================= > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16030106&query_hl=1 >>>>>Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They >>>>>look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > the same group of women the same number of times then there would be a > lot more validity here. Listen skin freak, it is really laughable that you on the basis of merely reading an abstract can decide whether the study's methodology is flawed or not. Hilarious in fact. But it seems to be a trait with you skin freaks. It is because the truth is too horrible to contemplate (given your compulsive salivation over "juicy" foreskins")? > By the way, not so long ago, you were raving about the uselessness > of the US Army study because of an imperfection in its design. I [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] >>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? >>cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16030106&query_hl=1 > >>>>>Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They > >>>>>look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > merely reading an abstract can decide whether the study's methodology is > flawed or not. You posted the article and chose to include a good description of the methodology used in the study. Apparently you are not used to reading such research reports and noting the limitations of the design. (Methods are described precisely so that readers can see the limitations of the results) If you were, the shortcoming in the study you posted would have been immediately noticed. Maybe then you would not have posted it. Or maybe you are in a hurry and cannot take time to read what you post. Whatever. Any literate human being could notice that the type female sexual partner of the two groups was totally un-controlled for. That one is easy in a way because it never is in these type studies.That big hole in the logic pattern is nearly always there - which makes these type studies useful but inevitably flawed. If you actually read them and had good quality common sense this would not all be so mysterious to you. It is not rocket science. Hilarious in fact. But it seems to be a trait with you > skin freaks. It is because the truth is too horrible to contemplate > (given your compulsive salivation over "juicy" foreskins")? Why you are doing this remains a mystery. Unless you are a secret opponent of circs and hope to slander the pro-circ side by your mere presence. > > By the way, not so long ago, you were raving about the uselessness > > of the US Army study because of an imperfection in its design. I [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > >>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi? > >>cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16030106&query_hl=1 >>>>>>>Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They >>>>>>>look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > good quality common sense this would not all be so mysterious to you. > It is not rocket science. It remains amazing how skin freaks, by virtue of their interest in promoting the foreskin and its retention, obtain as if by some divine ordination the ability to sniff out methodological "flaws" in studies that find a benefit that accrues through circumcision or that finds the foreskin to be a dog. Yet remain silent on any studies that suit there own psychosexual obsession. Sad to see these skin freaks and their fellow travelers willingly compromise their integrity by saying anything, using anything, doing anything no matter how dishonest to promote the object of their sexual fetish. Really sad and pathetic. > >>>>>>>Does the American Medical Association consist of skin freaks? They > >>>>>>>look at the alleged benefits, and say that they don't outweigh the [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > promoting the foreskin and its retention, obtain as if by some divine > ordination the ability to sniff out methodological "flaws" in studies Actually, this is done by reading with comprehension and applying the basic tools of good experimental design, especially in regard to factors which are not controlled. A good high chool student can do this. > that find a benefit that accrues through circumcision or that finds the > foreskin to be a dog. Yet remain silent on any studies that suit there > own psychosexual obsession. I generally do remain silent about subjects that have not even been mentioned. FWIW, all studies about STD risk have this defect. Or is that news to you?? > Sad to see these skin freaks and their fellow travelers willingly > compromise their integrity by saying anything, using anything, doing > anything no matter how dishonest to promote the object of their sexual > fetish. If one were to look for a person in the grip of a sexuall fetish, which of these groups would you check out first? 1. Those who say that nature is pretty smart about these things, just leave the poor kid alone. 2. Those who gather around a crying male child, forcibly remove his underpants, strap him to a rigid board, then clamp and cut off the most highly ennervated part of his penis entirely without anesthesia as the kid cries out in desperately severe pain.? Really sad and pathetic. Damnstraight it is. It hurts them as much as it would you. Almost as sad as those who push circumcision on infants, like it actually cures something, or even helps. Also sad how 'scar freaks' can't maintain civil discourse, without resorting to calling others 'skin freaks' as if people who don't hate the foreskin are somehow abnormal, and deserving of ire and epithets. Who has the 'psychosexual problem', those who say to leave the kids alone, when there is no medical reason to circumcise them, or those who are salivating over the propect of the kid getting cut and bleeding? Is that really what you want to be standing for, Jordan? > Almost as sad as those who push circumcision on infants, like it > actually cures something, or even helps. Also sad how 'scar freaks' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > propect of the kid getting cut and bleeding? Is that really what you > want to be standing for, Jordan? You are projecting your own psychosexual obsession upon others. There are people who believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. Can't fault that. > > Almost as sad as those who push circumcision on infants, like it > > actually cures something, or even helps. Also sad how 'scar freaks' [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Can't fault that. ------------------- Sure we can. What you just said is JUST like saying that butchery of infants is acceptable if their parents don't like big ears. Steve What is an acceptable parental decision changes over time. You are correct in stating that circumcision is currently an acceptable parental decision, now, today, in many countries. You are incorrect when you state that it is an acceptable decision for medical considerations, when applied to newborns. There is no way to diagnose phimosis in a newborn, since all have it, and at that developmental stage, it is normal. I am not projecting a 'psychosexual obession' on others. Nature built every mammal with a foreskin. It is not normal to advocate the removal of a healthy body part on someone else, for your own satisfaction. This is exactly what you are doing. It is an attempt to remove the free choice from another human being. > What is an acceptable parental decision changes over time. You are > correct in stating that circumcision is currently an acceptable [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > your own satisfaction. This is exactly what you are doing. It is an > attempt to remove the free choice from another human being. You are entitled to have an opinion upon the matter, either way. Why you get all bent out of shape at the though of a parental decision in favour of circumcision is something you need to attempt to unravel with the assistance of a shrink. > Why you > get all bent out of shape at the though of a parental decision in favour > of circumcision is something you need to attempt to unravel with the > assistance of a shrink. ----------------------- That's a lie. Phrinks would be on OUR side. It morally is NOT the decision of parents whether their son gets an intact or a mutilated body. Usurping the human right to control of what they retain on their own body is criminal assault. Steve >>Why you >>get all bent out of shape at the though of a parental decision in favour [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > own body is criminal assault. > Steve Now I suppose that holds good for shots as well? Or is it only the foreskin that demands special consideration? Shots to not remove healthy, functional body parts. The comparison is apples to oranges. > Shots to not remove healthy, functional body parts. The comparison is > apples to oranges. Nice try. The principle is what counts. You are talking about consent. It is much more sane to be concerned over the implications of vaccinations on the "intact" human immune system than lunatic raving over the loss of the foreskin. You see this is what makes you skin freaks such detestable creatures. It is your insane psychosexual obsession with all matters foreskin. Sorry, when you are comparing an injection which takes a few seconds, and actually helps the body fight off something, with a needless amputation which has never been proven to be of benefit, we are not talking about consent. There is consent of the recipient in neither case. In principle, this are two very different things. One involves a lifelong loss of functional tissue, the other does not. The only person doing lunatic raving about a foreskin is you, Briar. How is it normal to obsessively post negatively about a body part you don't even posess? How does the presence or absence of a foreskin even affect you? Why is it an "insane psychosexual obession with all matters foreskin", to stick up for a body part which is being slandered by others who are ignorant about it, when it has provided you with nothing but pleasure for your whole lifetime? That is simple gratitude. How did I become a "skin freak", "insane", "psychosexually obsessed" and a "detestable creature" in your mind, and not simply someone who holds a different opinion than you, Briar? I hold no such animosity towards you. I inhabit a world which is much less filled with hate, then the one you appear to inhabit. > Sorry, when you are comparing an injection which takes a few seconds, > and actually helps the body fight off something, with a needless > amputation which has never been proven to be of benefit, we are not > talking about consent. There is consent of the recipient in neither > case. In principle, this are two very different things. One involves > a lifelong loss of functional tissue, the other does not. Interesting to observe the constant metamorphosis of the skin freak argument to suit the moment. The argument has been about the supposed right of individual consent. But as one would expect the skin freak focus is narrowly on the foreskin, to hell with the immune system it seems. Nice one skin freaks. Then you notice how they skip the issue of the procedure supposedly unnecessary as no pre-existing condition exists. Is there a pre-existing condition present when shots are administered? Like with circumcision there are therefore only potential benefits which accrue. This is obvious to sane people. The next thing that indicates the selectivity of the skin freaks is that they have much to say about the supposed financial incentive of promoting circumcision but a thundering silence when considering the billion dollar business of immunization playing a part in the promotion of same. There is no consistency in the skin freak position which in turn indicates that their argument is not logical nor coherent but rather the product of a weird psychosexual obsession with foreskins. There should be a law requiring them to be registered. > Interesting to observe the constant metamorphosis of the skin freak > argument to suit the moment. The argument has been about the supposed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > product of a weird psychosexual obsession with foreskins. There should > be a law requiring them to be registered. Where is your evidence that immunizations are dangerous? >>Interesting to observe the constant metamorphosis of the skin freak >>argument to suit the moment. The argument has been about the supposed [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Where is your evidence that immunizations are dangerous? Have you even considered the possibility that they may be? Or is your focus norrowly on the foreskin to the exclusion of all else? > Have you even considered the possibility that they may be? Or is your > focus norrowly on the foreskin to the exclusion of all else? If they are, then show us your points, briar. I've invited you to do so twice. If there is something amiss with immunizations that you feel we should be educated about, then give us your thoughts. Otherwise, you've merely been called out on a stupid comparison. If they're harmful, tell us why. > > Where is your evidence that immunizations are dangerous? > > Have you even considered the possibility that they may be? ---------------------- Not seriously, since the evidence is quite the reverse!! > Or is your > focus norrowly on the foreskin to the exclusion of all else? --------------------------- That's YOUR delusion! We simply wish to protect children and parents from your mindless insanity! Steve > > Sorry, when you are comparing an injection which takes a few seconds, > > and actually helps the body fight off something, with a needless [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > product of a weird psychosexual obsession with foreskins. There should > be a law requiring them to be registered. ------------------------- We need every piece of sh.t like YOU rounded up and TORTURE-KILLED for promoting the MUTILATION OF CHILDREN with your assault on normal erotic and sensation-rich sexual intercourse with the foreskin intact!!! Steve > > Shots to not remove healthy, functional body parts. The comparison is > > apples to oranges. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > vaccinations on the "intact" human immune system than lunatic raving > over the loss of the foreskin. And what are the implications? > You see this is what makes you skin freaks such detestable creatures. It > is your insane psychosexual obsession with all matters foreskin. >>>Shots to not remove healthy, functional body parts. The comparison is >>>apples to oranges. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And what are the implications? Now if you were really a supposed "child rights" advocate as you skin freaks like to claim you would have the facts at your fingertips. The fact that you dont clearly serves to indicate that you skin freaks are narrowly focused on the foreskin and as such should be required to be registered at your local police station and be banned from being within 500 yards of a school of other gathering place for kids. > Now if you were really a supposed "child rights" advocate as you skin > freaks like to claim you would have the facts at your fingertips. Since this is a circumcision ng, I'm not too interested in discussing the effects of immunizations. Now, if you'd like to shed some light on what point your ravings are trying to make, please do so. > The fact that you dont clearly serves to indicate that you skin freaks > are narrowly focused on the foreskin and as such should be required to > be registered at your local police station and be banned from being > within 500 yards of a school of other gathering place for kids. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. >>Now if you were really a supposed "child rights" advocate as you skin >>freaks like to claim you would have the facts at your fingertips. > > Since this is a circumcision ng, I'm not too interested in discussing the > effects of immunizations. Now, if you'd like to shed some light on what > point your ravings are trying to make, please do so. Knowing about and understanding the implication of immunizations but not going into detail here is one thing but you obvious lack of understanding of how applicable your demand for personal choice (in the case of infant circumcision) really is in principle to immunization. Further there are of course parallels with your ranting and raving over leaving the human body "intact". What we learn from you skin freaks is that you care not a jot for child rights, personal choice etc as all you care about is the foreskin for which you have a psychosexual obsession. It is important for the public to know what drives the anti-circumcision agenda and who are the prime movers in this regard. They will not like what they find out. > Knowing about and understanding the implication of immunizations but not > going into detail here is one thing but you obvious lack of > understanding of how applicable your demand for personal choice (in the > case of infant circumcision) really is in principle to immunization. So, what's your beef regarding immunizations? > Further there are of course parallels with your ranting and raving over > leaving the human body "intact". Since immunizations add, rather than subtract from the human body, I do not see the parallels. A few needles is nothing compared to being strapped down and cut into and sent home bloodied and bandaged without your input as to whether this should be happening. > What we learn from you skin freaks is that you care not a jot for child > rights, personal choice etc as all you care about is the foreskin for > which you have a psychosexual obsession. Really? > It is important for the public to know what drives the anti-circumcision > agenda and who are the prime movers in this regard. They will not like > what they find out. Come down out of your bunker, Briar and please educate us as to the relevance of immunizations and their inherent good, versus your perceived bad. > Knowing about and understanding the implication of immunizations but not > going into detail here is one thing ------------------- And something you're unable to do, obviously! > but you obvious lack of > understanding of how applicable your demand for personal choice (in the > case of infant circumcision) really is in principle to immunization. --------------------- It isn't the parent's choice, it's the MAN'S! They deserve this vaunted RIGHT, you vicious sh.t! > Further there are of course parallels with your ranting and raving over > leaving the human body "intact". ------------------------ Indeed, it is parallel to every outcry against religious, cultural, or national brutality that has ever improved human society!! > What we learn from you ------------------------- There is NO "we" of you, you sh.t, you're the solitary INSANE, there are barely more than one of you, perhaps half again one more if you count several of you disordered sh.ts AT ONCE! > skin freaks is that you care not a jot for child > rights, personal choice ------------------------- You learn NOTHING, you're capable of NOTHING, you know NOTHING! It is ENTIRELY for their PERSONAL RIGHT, their CHOICE that we fight! > etc as all you care about is the foreskin for > which you have a psychosexual obsession. ----------------------------- The "psychosexual obsession" is YOURS ALONE, for your disorder has you mirroring your own sickness in others and blaming others for it. > It is important for the public to know what drives the anti-circumcision > agenda --------------------- Oh they know, and public health experts know of your sickness and that we will have to rid ourselves of sh.t like you to progress! Steve WTF? The people you accuse of being 'skin freaks' are normal people, with normal penises, and often with normal children. Should a man like myself with an uncircumcised son be banned from being within 500 yards of a school, simply because I oppose your sacred cow, circumcision? Briar, you are really, seriously unglued. Do you believe you are being rational? > WTF? The people you accuse of being 'skin freaks' are normal people, > with normal penises, and often with normal children. Should a man like > myself with an uncircumcised son be banned from being within 500 yards > of a school, simply because I oppose your sacred cow, circumcision? > Briar, you are really, seriously unglued. Do you believe you are being > rational? You are the skin freaks. The ones who are rabid in your promotion of the foreskin and the demonisation of male circumcision. Normal people don't do that. > > WTF? The people you accuse of being 'skin freaks' are normal people, > > with normal penises, and often with normal children. Should a man like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > foreskin and the demonisation of male circumcision. Normal people don't > do that. ----------------------- WE'RE the ones who are NORMAL!! The Foreskin contributes to increased sexual sensation for the male and better stimulation for women in sexual intercourse!! YOU want to MUTILATE CHILDREN!! YOU'RE THE INSANE FUNDY BIGOT!! Steve > > WTF? The people you accuse of being 'skin freaks' are normal people, > > with normal penises, and often with normal children. Should a man like [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > foreskin and the demonisation of male circumcision. Normal people don't > do that. Normal people don't get away with cutting up a newborn. But, put a lab coat on them and place a Dr. before their name and all the human body is their playground. > >>>Shots to not remove healthy, functional body parts. The comparison is > >>>apples to oranges. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Now if you were really a supposed "child rights" advocate as you skin > freaks like to claim you would have the facts at your fingertips. ----------------------- The only "fact" we need is that you're an insane Fundy Bigot who should be taken right out and KILLED for promoting the MUTILATION OF CHILDREN! Steve > > Shots to not remove healthy, functional body parts. The comparison is > > apples to oranges. > > Nice try. > > The principle is what counts. You are talking about consent. ------------------- A Right extends to the next person's immune system. The right to one's foreskin is not a public health menace. Whereas un-immunized citizens are! > It is much more sane to be concerned over the implications of > vaccinations on the "intact" human immune system than lunatic raving > over the loss of the foreskin. ----------------------- Vaccinations improve the immune system, that's what they do. If you doubt this go to the public health records and look. > You see this is what makes you skin freaks such detestable creatures. ------------------------- Nothing "makes" us some fanciful delusion of yours, but you. > It is your insane psychosexual obsession with all matters foreskin. ------------------------ What you see is your face in the mirror of your obsession which is yours alone. Steve > >>Why you > >>get all bent out of shape at the though of a parental decision in favour [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Now I suppose that holds good for shots as well? Or is it only the > foreskin that demands special consideration? It depends; do you WANT your child to get polio? So, Briar, what exactly are your qualifications, for judging that someone you never met needs psychological help, because their opinion differs from yours on whether routine infant circumcision is ethical? Have you ever made the decision to circumcise a child, or refrain from circumcising a child? I have, both ways. Just who are you to judge, and what gives you that right? You are entitled to your opinion on circumcision, but any judgment of my sanity is pure presumption on your part. > > What is an acceptable parental decision changes over time. You are > > correct in stating that circumcision is currently an acceptable [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of circumcision is something you need to attempt to unravel with the > assistance of a shrink. > > What is an acceptable parental decision changes over time. You are > > correct in stating that circumcision is currently an acceptable [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of circumcision is something you need to attempt to unravel with the > assistance of a shrink. You are the Bizarro Tom Cruise; he loathes psychiatry and you place it on a pedestal better suited to real heroes. I'm not putting it on a pedestal. I'm just saying Briar is unqualified, or, even if he is, you can't make those kinds of judgments without meeting a person, or at least knowing them more personally than a post here. > I'm not putting it on a pedestal. I'm just saying Briar is > unqualified, or, even if he is, you can't make those kinds of judgments > without meeting a person, or at least knowing them more personally than > a post here. Sorry Tom, but my reply was to Briar Rabbit's post on Wed, 25 Jan 2006: "You are entitled to have an opinion upon the matter, either way. Why you get all bent out of shape at the though of a parental decision in favour of circumcision is something you need to attempt to unravel with the assistance of a shrink." His answer to everything--especially being pro-foreskin--seems to be a visit to the shrink and I find this idea highly dubious. >>I'm not putting it on a pedestal. I'm just saying Briar is >>unqualified |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message