Log In Sign Up

Interesting Article


Forum: Heated Debates

Notices

Welcome to the JustMommies Message Boards.

We pride ourselves on having the friendliest and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment and register for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers. If you have any problems registering please drop an email to [email protected].

Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!

Reply Post New Topic
  Subscribe To Heated Debates LinkBack Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
  #1  
July 28th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 76
Interesting article.

http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2  
August 1st, 2006, 02:35 AM
jakew's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Interesting article.

http://www.foreskin.org/fleiss.htm[/b]
Absolutely awful article - nothing but propaganda. To show you what I mean, let's examine one sentence and see whether it is accurate and honest:

"Rigorously controlled prospective studies show that circumcised
American men are at a greater risk for bacterial and viral STDs,
especially gonorrhea,43"

Here, Fleiss misrepresents his source. Here is what it actually says:
"Gonorrhoea, syphilis and acute hepatitis B were reported too
infrequently to reliably exclude any association with circumcision
status." See: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/donovan1/

"nongonoccal urethritis,44"

The source does indeed find that. However, he ignores his 43rd
reference, finding "[there] were no significant associations between the
presence or absence of the male prepuce and the number diagnosed with
genital herpes, genital warts and non-gonococcal urethritis" and his
47th, reporting "[we] find no significant differences between
circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting
sexually transmitted diseases." Were these studies 'rigorously
controlled' or not? If they were, then their finding of no difference
might appear to contradict Fleiss' claim and should, at the very least,
be noted. If they were not, why does he misrepresent them? It seems that
he wants to have his cake and eat it.

"human papilloma virus,45"

The source does indeed find that, contrary to every single other study
to investigate the issue.

"herpes simplex virus type 2,46"

His source contradicts his claim: "Neither increasing age nor lack of
circumcision was associated with HSV-2 infection."

"and chlamydia.47"

His source states: "We find no significant differences between
circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting
sexually transmitted diseases."

Three misrepresented sources, one carefully picked anomalous study, and
one that contradicts his other references. Bad scholarship or plain
lying? We don't know, but no prizes for guessing why Fleiss chose to
publish this in a lay magazine rather than go through peer review.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
August 1st, 2006, 06:31 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
And yet all of the scientifically credible evidence shows conclusively that STD's are much more prevalent in the circumcisng USA than intact Europe--

this is the difference between "studies" and reality.. looks like studies promoting "beneits' for circumcsision are about as useless as anything can be...even circumcision itself.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
August 1st, 2006, 07:30 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 394
Quote:
And yet all of the scientifically credible evidence shows conclusively that STD's are much more prevalent in the circumcisng USA than intact Europe--

this is the difference between "studies" and reality.. looks like studies promoting "beneits' for circumcsision are about as useless as anything can be...even circumcision itself.[/b]
Your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
August 1st, 2006, 07:51 AM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Quote:
Absolutely awful article - nothing but propaganda. To show you what I mean, let's examine one sentence and see whether it is accurate and honest:[/b]
So upon the basis of that we should dismiss all of it?

This is less than thorough...

Quote:
Three misrepresented sources, one carefully picked anomalous study, and
one that contradicts his other references. Bad scholarship or plain
lying? We don't know, but no prizes for guessing why Fleiss chose to
publish this in a lay magazine rather than go through peer review.[/b]
Exactly! He should have done precisely what those HIV "Scientists" did and got it published in a medical journal of high repute, like the Lancet!

__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #6  
August 1st, 2006, 04:10 PM
Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 76
Didnt say how accurate it was, just said it was interesting. :-)
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #7  
August 1st, 2006, 04:23 PM
Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
Debating exhaustive studies regarding issues over which we have limited personal knowledge (such as global warming/dimming and the likelihood of natural catastrophes) is one thing.

Debating uncertain and dubious studies regarding issues over which we have boundless personal knowledge (such as our genitals) is quite another.

Jake, hello again, my erstwhile friend. Try the ultimate tactic of common sense, for a change; it's far more effective and persuasive - assuming you have a leg to stand on, of course!

Christopher
Reply With Quote
  #8  
August 2nd, 2006, 03:42 AM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Welcome Islay!

ITA with your first post of course, glad to have you hear.
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #9  
August 2nd, 2006, 06:40 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
Your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.[/b]
It seems you still into the "reality is what I believe and flawed studies show" mode.

Reality:
CDC: "The reported ***gonorrhea rate in the United States remains the highest of any industrialized country*** and is roughly 50 times that of Sweden and eight times that of Canada".

The CDC says 15 million people in the United States become infected every year with an STD, ***half of which are INCURABLE viral infections such as herpes or human papilloma virus (HPV), the CAUSE of genital warts and cervical cancer****.

Such ***incurable*** STD's affect 65 million Americans.

It says 5.5 million Americans are infected with HPV every year, 3 million get chlamydia, 1 million get herpes and 650,000 get gonorrhea.

"The United States looks bad when compared to other rich countries, the NY report said."

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/05/healt...reut/index.html
Reply With Quote
  #10  
August 2nd, 2006, 09:06 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 394
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.[/b]
It seems you still into the "reality is what I believe and flawed studies show" mode.

Reality:
CDC: "The reported ***gonorrhea rate in the United States remains the highest of any industrialized country*** and is roughly 50 times that of Sweden and eight times that of Canada".

The CDC says 15 million people in the United States become infected every year with an STD, ***half of which are INCURABLE viral infections such as herpes or human papilloma virus (HPV), the CAUSE of genital warts and cervical cancer****.

Such ***incurable*** STD's affect 65 million Americans.

It says 5.5 million Americans are infected with HPV every year, 3 million get chlamydia, 1 million get herpes and 650,000 get gonorrhea.

"The United States looks bad when compared to other rich countries, the NY report said."

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/12/05/healt...reut/index.html
[/b][/quote]

Your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
August 2nd, 2006, 09:36 AM
Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2
Quote:
Welcome Islay!

ITA with your first post of course, glad to have you hear.[/b]
Thank you, James. I rather doubt that I'll return often, though. I find the closure of the board at weekends and the need to wait for a moderator before a post is displayed, irksome to say the least.

I may try a once defunct but now resurrected circumcision debate board again. It was originally the best on the Net.

Christopher
Reply With Quote
  #12  
August 3rd, 2006, 03:04 AM
jakew's Avatar Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,577
Quote:
Quote:
Absolutely awful article - nothing but propaganda. To show you what I mean, let's examine one sentence and see whether it is accurate and honest:[/b]
So upon the basis of that we should dismiss all of it?

This is less than thorough...
[/b]
At the very least, it would indicate that every sentence needs to be treated with the same level of scrutiny. But if the references must be checked anyway, what value does the misleading summary have?

Alternatively, Aesop's fable of the boy who cried 'wolf' seems appropriate: if a person shows himself to be untrustworthy, others simply don't trust him, preferring instead to consult other sources.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
August 3rd, 2006, 05:44 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.
[/b][/quote]

And I see that you have once again failed to refute that reality.. empty beliefs the ultimate empty response?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
August 3rd, 2006, 10:59 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 394
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Quote:
Your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.
[/b]
And I see that you have once again failed to refute that reality.. empty beliefs the ultimate empty response?
[/b][/quote]

Nope - you haven't provided "reality" (reality being the actual affect circ has on HIV transmission). Afterall, you're the one trying to use national rates of HIV and circumcision to prove a "point" WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING HIV TRANSMISSION. Illogical, unscientific and unreasonable. Try again.

So, it bears repeating...your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
August 3rd, 2006, 12:11 PM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Chris: I do find that irksome too. But I can see the reasoning behind it.

If you could PM me the URL of that site then that would be much appreciated.

Quote:
At the very least, it would indicate that every sentence needs to be treated with the same level of scrutiny. But if the references must be checked anyway, what value does the misleading summary have?

Alternatively, Aesop's fable of the boy who cried 'wolf' seems appropriate: if a person shows himself to be untrustworthy, others simply don't trust him, preferring instead to consult other sources.[/b]
Yes, I too am fond of sources which I can rely on. Sources with esteem, integrity and which have proven themselves to be worthy of my respect.

Like The Lancet.
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #16  
August 3rd, 2006, 02:50 PM
Revamp's Avatar Super Mommy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Troy
Posts: 542
Quote:
Nope - you haven't provided "reality" (reality being the actual affect circ has on HIV transmission). Afterall, you're the one trying to use national rates of HIV and circumcision to prove a "point" WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING HIV TRANSMISSION. Illogical, unscientific and unreasonable. Try again.

So, it bears repeating...your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.[/b]
So it is honestly your belief that if here in Britain we adopted RIC for every boy we would experience a 60-70% decrease in HIV rates?
__________________
When the cat befriended the mouse, there wasn't a dry eye in the house!

http://www.observer.org.sz/main.asp?id=182...mp;Section=main
Reply With Quote
  #17  
August 4th, 2006, 04:58 AM
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 394
Quote:
Quote:
Nope - you haven't provided "reality" (reality being the actual affect circ has on HIV transmission). Afterall, you're the one trying to use national rates of HIV and circumcision to prove a "point" WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING HIV TRANSMISSION. Illogical, unscientific and unreasonable. Try again.

So, it bears repeating...your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.[/b]
So it is honestly your belief that if here in Britain we adopted RIC for every boy we would experience a 60-70% decrease in HIV rates?
[/b]
I don't know what the overall decrease would be. If a circumcised man had sex twice with an HIV infected person or three times or ten times with an HIV infected person, then of course it would be more likely that he would contract the disease. All I'm saying, is it that the studies are evidence that in any given sex act, circumcision provides some protective effect against HIV transmission. Inonow's ludicrous attempt to use national rates of HIV and circumcision to prove otherwise without accounting for other factorws affecting HIV transmission is illogical, unscientific and unreasonable. Surely you agree with that revamp.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
August 4th, 2006, 05:44 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
Nope - you haven't provided "reality" (reality being the actual affect circ has on HIV transmission). Afterall, you're the one trying to use national rates of HIV and circumcision to prove a "point" WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR OTHER FACTORS AFFECTING HIV TRANSMISSION. Illogical, unscientific and unreasonable. Try again.

So, it bears repeating...your failure to comprehend reality has clouded and distorted your conclusions yet again inonow.[/b]
Sorry, it is not reality that is flawed--the rates are the rates.. unfortunatetly it is the bogus studies that are flawed by not accounting for these other factors (excuses when comparing them to reality).

It seems your inability to discard your superstitious beliefs seems to preclude your accepting of reality..now there is illogical, unscientific, and unreasonable!

So,

WHERE is proof for this alleged reduction?

Behaviour is 110 times more significant then circumcision IF the alleged reduction actually exists.

WHERE is proof for this alleged reduction?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
August 4th, 2006, 05:46 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
Alternatively, Aesop's fable of the boy who cried 'wolf' seems appropriate: if a person shows himself to be untrustworthy, others simply don't trust him, preferring instead to consult other sources.[/b]
This seems to be true in the case of Schoen, Wiswell, Moses, Weiss, Bailey, Halperin, and rest of that crew.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
August 4th, 2006, 05:56 AM
Mega Super Mommy
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,330
Quote:
I don't know what the overall decrease would be. If a circumcised man had sex twice with an HIV infected person or three times or ten times with an HIV infected person, then of course it would be more likely that he would contract the disease. All I'm saying, is it that the studies are evidence that in any given sex act, circumcision provides some protective effect against HIV transmission. Inonow's ludicrous attempt to use national rates of HIV and circumcision to prove otherwise without accounting for other factorws affecting HIV transmission is illogical, unscientific and unreasonable. Surely you agree with that revamp.[/b]
Gee, using your "logic" then WHERE is the reduction in the USA and Eithiopia? Can we EVER see it anywhere in the real world? or is it meerly an imaginary reducution?

Then perhaps we should just imagine people are circumcised and prevent a lot of people being harmed?

Are you styill ignoring the fact THAT ALL OF THESE STUDIES ARE FLAWED DUE TO NOT ACCOMODATING THESE "OTHER" FACTORS" you keep using as an excuse..?

Interesting when the studies do not include them, the studies are NOT FLAWED, but reality IS FLAWED when it does include them.. a bit of the old circumciser double think--or double standard?

It seems that this alledged reduction only seems to manifect itself in the imagination of circumcisers --and their silly games.

WHERE is proof for this alleged reduction?

Behaviour is 110 times more significant then circumcision.

WHERE is proof for this alleged reduction?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Topic Tools Search this Topic
Search this Topic:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 AM.