4> "The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." and given that many of the issues circumcision causes aren't immediate and aren't connected to the circumcision, like painfully tight erections in adults who have dealt with it all their life. >>
-
-
Please give a specific flaw from the paper.
-
"We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime". Utter tosh.
-
That's your inability to accept their findings, not a flaw in the study. You, quite ltierally, are an uneducated fool, looking to pick apart a systematic review, which is a type of study that you know nothing about. Tell me, have you ever even take a fucking biology course?
-
You know nothing about me, my level of education. I have no desire to share with you any details of my medical training. Oh, and if you're going to accuse someone of being an 'uneducated fool', you might first want to remove your own spelling mistakes from that accusing sentence.
-
You: "Please give a specific flaw from the paper." Me: Here are some examples... <PROVIDES A SELECTION OF EXAMPLES> You: <IGNORES EXAMPLES> <GETS ABUSIVE> <COMPLAINS> "...looking to pick apart a systematic review..."
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Here's an example. The Royal Dutch Medical Association: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm … Are all those Dutch doctors risking their careers by being emphatically against neonatal circ? They have access to the same scientific papers as Morris yet reached different conclusions?pic.twitter.com/52zmHZtegt
-
Okay, I just need to ask this. Was anyone in this thread arguing that circumcision is a good thing? because from what I've read it seems that everyone is on the same page here, yet there's a back-and-forth going on.
-
I've provided two systematic reviews which indicate benefits of male circumcision. They were ignored, in much the same way that research justifying vaccines is ignored.
-
And we're really not on the same page here. This science denying moron ignores systematic review of clinical research. You fucks are dumber that half the anti-vaxx people I've met, and that's saying something.
-
We're not on the same page here. Because: 1) You are clearly of the opinion that all systematic reviews are beyond criticism. 2) You (had) no knowledge of the principle author's reputation for statistical manipulation, bias and constant self-referencing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.