The African clinical trials are not relevant to North American life, especially in the middle class. The problem is casual sex without condoms. The solution is condoms, or giving up casual sex. We need to investigate whether circumcision discourages condom use, in which case it is counterproductive. I agree with all those who have asked, rhetorically, whether cervical cancer is much more common in Europe and Japan than in the USA.
The normally acclaimed reason for these numbers is reduction in smegma formation. Youd think FGM (pharaoic) would have the oposite effect. But then we shut up about that. Why? Because the procedure isn't worth the lower HPV rate even if the connection between smegma and HPV was correct. "Not a 100%, but none the less, it will LOWER the risk". By what? 2 percent? She'd give us a rough estimate if it was anything worth mentioning. And no shit, nothing ever reduces a risk by 100% in medicine.
It's all about the money, and the businesses that benefit in the end. There is always a catch when somebody is trying to make something that's so barbaric, inhumane and irrational into an ordinary thing. The specialised tissue that make up the foreskin has many different uses. And the big corporations are playing a huge role.
its just simple hygiene. and women are far more dirty then men intact or not. so by saying that its better for men to be circumcised for hygiene. then you are also saying that it would be better for women to be cut for hygiene reasons. or people could just teach/learn/use basic hygiene.
Indeed. It seems everybody forgot that the first major outbreak of AIDS, at least in the industrialized world, happened in the United States where circumcision was practically done routinely.
You would think females in Israel would get cervical cancer similar to the US, since most males are circed in both countrys, but the rate of cervical cancer in Israel is like 0 percent..
Circumcision does not reduce HPV or cervical cancer, as many studies find. European nations, where circumcision is uncommon, don't suffer more cervical cancer than the USA, where circumcision is common. In fact, countries with LOWEST cervical cancer rates are non-circumcising nations: Finland, regions of South East Asia, e.g. Shanghai, and parts of Europe. Source: search "epidemiology of cervical cancer.pdf”, fig. 4. Cervical cancer rates are linked with socioeconomic factors, not circumcision.
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
So everyone in the world has been inoculated? Get real. Not to mention the other health benefits.
The African clinical trials are not relevant to North American life, especially in the middle class.
The problem is casual sex without condoms. The solution is condoms, or giving up casual sex. We need to investigate whether circumcision discourages condom use, in which case it is counterproductive.
I agree with all those who have asked, rhetorically, whether cervical cancer is much more common in Europe and Japan than in the USA.
The normally acclaimed reason for these numbers is reduction in smegma formation. Youd think FGM (pharaoic) would have the oposite effect. But then we shut up about that. Why? Because the procedure isn't worth the lower HPV rate even if the connection between smegma and HPV was correct.
"Not a 100%, but none the less, it will LOWER the risk". By what? 2 percent? She'd give us a rough estimate if it was anything worth mentioning. And no shit, nothing ever reduces a risk by 100% in medicine.
It's all about the money, and the businesses that benefit in the end. There is always a catch when somebody is trying to make something that's so barbaric, inhumane and irrational into an ordinary thing. The specialised tissue that make up the foreskin has many different uses. And the big corporations are playing a huge role.
its just simple hygiene. and women are far more dirty then men intact or not. so by saying that its better for men to be circumcised for hygiene. then you are also saying that it would be better for women to be cut for hygiene reasons. or people could just teach/learn/use basic hygiene.
Indeed. It seems everybody forgot that the first major outbreak of AIDS, at least in the industrialized world, happened in the United States where circumcision was practically done routinely.
You would think females in Israel would get cervical cancer similar to the US, since most males are circed in both countrys, but the rate of cervical cancer in Israel is like 0 percent..
don't spoil the sexual life by doing circumcision.There is no relationship between circumcision and any infection
bird Wing
(2)The text is a Citation, out of
"The Unacknowledged Trauma"
Studies are studies.
Some show benefits, some dont.
Circumcision does not reduce HPV or cervical cancer, as many studies find. European nations, where circumcision is uncommon, don't suffer more cervical cancer than the USA, where circumcision is common. In fact, countries with LOWEST cervical cancer rates are non-circumcising nations: Finland, regions of South East Asia, e.g. Shanghai, and parts of Europe.
Source: search "epidemiology of cervical cancer.pdf”, fig. 4.
Cervical cancer rates are linked with socioeconomic factors, not circumcision.