"Appeal to authority. Appeal to authority. Appeal to authority. REEEEEEE-" Argue on your own merits instead of someone else's. You keep saying we don't understand while you don't reference a single point from the article.
-
-
Replying to @VaetanThought @BSR163 and
You're confusing an appeal to authority and the citation of research.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @politicoid_us @VaetanThought and
Morris's 'research' is often fabricated. And referenced in his other papers, which are then referenced in other papers... He relies on the fact that his nested references are difficult to validate. Friendly peer reviewers don't stand a chance of cutting through his obfuscations.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BSR163 @VaetanThought and
So you're saying that his coauthors were willing to risk their career publishing fabricated research? Yes or no?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @politicoid_us @VaetanThought and
His co-authors can speak for themselves. Quite telling that Royal Australasian College of Physicians said "After extensive review of the literature, the Paed's & Child Health Division of RACP has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BSR163 @VaetanThought and
Either the paper is valid or his coauthors are risking their career. Which do you believe is the case?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @politicoid_us @VaetanThought and
The paper is utterly flawed. Conclude what you like about his co-authors and their careers. The vast majority of global medical experts and western medical bodies do not hold his views on routine neonatal circumcision (without medical indication).
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BSR163 @VaetanThought and
Please give a specific flaw from the paper.
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @politicoid_us @VaetanThought and
Where do I begin? It's full of utter bollocks and very dubious numbers. "Comparing benefits to risk we calculated that lifetime benefit exceeded procedural risk by 200:1". Calculated on the back of a napkin? Show your working maybe?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BSR163 @VaetanThought and
Maybe you should write less and read more. The risk-benefit analysis is in table one which is literally titled Risk-benefit analysis for newborn male circumcision. I suggest you take a course on this topic, because you are so very uninformed.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
There is no data on sexual dysfunction broken down by circumcision status. There's no honest count of botched/lethal circumcisions. Hence the RISKS of infant circumcision are unknown. Unknown risks cannot be compared to real or alleged benefits. RISK:BENEFIT analysis is nonsense
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.