Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
|
Actually, the AAP's review of literature stopped at 2010, leaving out the most important scientific piece of work ever conducted on the sexual impact of circumcision (indeed, one of the only ones ever conducted) -- a study of 5,000 couples by Frisch et al, published in late 2011, that found circumcised men and their partners were 3.5X more likely to have frequent orgasm problems, in addition to less sexual satisfaction and increased problems with vaginal pain.
http://ije.oxfordjournals.o...
The KNMG, representing 40,000 Dutch doctors, cited this study in a recent symposium on circumcision, following their 2010 report condemning infant circumcision as being risky and without medical benefit.
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Ni...
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Pu...
Moreover, a study was just published by Rodriguez et al that found a sample of men in Puerto Rico were more likely to have HIV if circumcised. This is in line with a 2009 USAID study that found, in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were more likely to have HIV. This is important given several flawed studies in AFRICA were the primary basis for the AAP's updated stance more heavily favoring circumcision. No population level data has ever shown an HIV reduction from circumcision.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley....
http://www.measuredhs.com/p...
I encourage you to read the AAP's full "Technical Report" on infant circumcision, where the "Task Force" never even bothers to describe what exactly the foreskin is or the anatomy and physiology of the penis. You won't find the word 'frenulum' anywhere in the report.
Taylor's studies discussing the "Ridged Band" of nerve endings are never mentioned, and Sorrells' findings on penile sensitivity are glossed over. The AAP admits that circumcision has been found to reduce masturbatory pleasure, but omits this from any of their conclusions.
The section on penile cancer is an absolute absurdity -- penile cancer is rarer than male breast cancer. The AAP Task Force found one credible study showed that there would need to be 322,000 infant circumcisions, and 644 circumcision complications, to prevent one case of penile cancer.
Science, my friend, does not support infant circumcision. The AAP supports it because they are biased and defending their members, who are responsible for millions of infant circumcisions over the past 100 years.
Case in point: the head of the Task Force is an STD expert from the CDC. Babies aren't even sexually active. How does this make any sense?
I notice that while criticizing Goldman's 20 point response, you cherry pick your points, much like you accuse him of cherry picking the science. How does the foreskin being 6 square inches or 12 square inches make any difference in whether it should be amputated from a baby?