Or researchers just examine circumcised individuals and report the medical results (positive or negative). Just because the results don’t match your expectations, doesn’t make it pseudo-science. Not everyone is mutilated from childhood-adulthood. The world isn’t monolithic. Facts
-
-
-
Interesting you mention results not matching expectations. We must remember
#circumcision as medicine is only about a century old; it has been a highly contested superstitious belief for much longer, 6,000 years or so. Religious belief may color expectations.#i2 -
A conviction to defend what has been a highly contested religious ritual since the time of the Maccabees presents a conflict of interest with a genuine concern for science, research and public health. Religious convictions may color expectations, hence creationism.
#i2 -
Just because results don’t match doesn’t expectations doesn’t make research pseudoscience, it’s true. But how do we know the “researchers” are only publishing “results” that fit their expectations? And refusing to publish results that conflict with their religious beliefs?
#i2 -
There is a problem when the “reported medical results” fail to correlate with reality. (Lack of external validity.) And there is a problem when the most respected medical organizations look at these “results” and find them wanting.
#i2 -
I come back to my original post; what are “researchers” looking for? Is it to solve a problem? To cure a disease? Or is it to safeguard and protect a contested superstitious ritual? There are already better ways to achieve the “benefits” circumcision is supposed to confer.
#i2 -
Is the point of science to find newer, better ways to do things? Or to keep things the way they are? It should be obvious by now that the ongoing quest to vindicate
#circumcision is pseudoscience. It’s no different than “researchers” publishing the “merits” of bloodletting.#i2 -
Other questions arise. How would we treat “research” and “trials” to find “medical benefits” in
#FGM? And how would we treat “studies” that actually found them?#i2 http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/08/does-female-genital-mutilation-have-health-benefits-the-problem-with-medicalizing-morality/ … - 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
A good point. More than one "scientific" article claiming "[Male genital cutting] protects against disease X" begins with other claims about MGC, instead of other ways of preventing X.
-
As one observer said- "Circumcision is a cure in search of a disease."
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.