I already linked you a source that identified "1 early death for every 49,166 newborn inpatient circumcisions" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326040454_Factors_associated_with_early_deaths_following_neonatal_male_circumcision_in_the_United_States_2001-2010 … A number that is certainly a gross underestimate since it ONLY counted cases where death occurred during the same hospital admission as the cut
-
-
Cases like this wouldn't count: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/feb/17/religion.world1 … People have estimated the total impact outside that constraint and concluded ~117 deaths per year in USA alone: https://www.academia.edu/6394940/Lost_Boys_An_Estimate_of_U.S._Circumcision-Related_Infant_Deaths … You are trying to justify forcing unnecessary surgery on kids that causes this.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Lol. “Estimated” data and selective sources. By your own logic, all day, these are BS. You should expect better of yourself considering the high bar you’ve established for fact and proof.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I cited you original research from someone who directly went through case reports to compile a fact-based evaluation of the number of deaths that occurred in the same hospital admission as the circumcision, probably took years of work, and you dismiss it with "BS". Learn to read
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @brownburr42 @KhazWolf and
BS? There a several acronyms you can consider when educating yourself or others on the benefits of circumcision. CPS, AAP, CDC, WHO are a few good ones but I hope you’re up to speed on those already.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CircsUp @brownburr42 and
#i2@AmAcadPeds@CDCgov@WHO are in general highly respected organizations, however on the subject of male circumcision there is evidence they are and have been called out by other equally respected medical organizations as culturally biased and susceptible to confirmation bias2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Mindofown @brownburr42 and
The science hasn’t changed regardless of the “tread lightly” approach of gov agencies. They still support the science and avoid the eggshells. UTI, STI, Cancer continue to be listed as benefits.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @brownburr42 @Mindofown and
Oh which accredited journal is this? The Infectious Disease News! That’s a good one. Lol
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
#i2 Journal status does not preclude bias the American Journal of Pediatrics a highly respected medical journal was accused by world leaders in medicine as being culturally biased on the subject of American Circumcision Policy. Rare thing to happen indicating the alarm it caused
-
-
Replying to @Mindofown @brownburr42 and
Journal status does carry weight and accusation are just that. Your argument carried many holes. The past two hours of this debate has been founded on citations and who has the best. So far you have the RACP. I don’t see much else.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CircsUp @Mindofown and
I’d love to continue however I’m floating at 2% battery charge and my two young circs are due to bed. Safe travels all. Maybe the laws of the land will have changed by morn but until then CircsUp. Night to all!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.