At the risk of being accused of an ad hominem, anyone who's unaware of the reputation of the person behind that systematic review needs to look into his background. The self-referencing bad science circumfetishist has zero credibility in medical circles. http://mondofown.blogspot.com/2011/02/critique-of-brian-morris-of-circinfonet.html?m=1 …
-
-
Replying to @BSR163 @politicoid_us and
This is exactly why. 90% of what he systemically reviews is his own papers, most of his citations include him as an author, he writes in circles in this way, putting out new paper as if it refutes new evidence that the old studies were wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Show flawed methodology or shut up. Don't want a paper by him? Cool.https://sti.bmj.com/content/82/2/101.short …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @politicoid_us @BSR163 and
Flawed methodology like the HIV studies that did nothing to account for the 10% of the study where the intervention cohort was unable to have sex due to healing? Or did nothing to determine the HIV infection vector, when 1 in 5 HIV cases in that area of the world are believed>>
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ReyosB @politicoid_us and
2> non sexual in transmission? Or the fact that the studies look at infections in population not seroconversion rates, but this is the assumed reason why FGM shows to reduce HIV infections in the study linked here: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=iph_theses …
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Buddy, I have provided you with two different systematic reviews. You are also arguing against a different thing here, since we're not talking about FGM or HIV specifically. You and anti-vaxxers use the same mentality when discussing medical science.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @politicoid_us @BSR163 and
No? HIV is the number one brought up STD in support of circumcising people, those African RCTs are the so called gold standard of evidence that allows people to strap children down and cut away part of their bodies. To permanently alter them. While science doesn't clearly prove>>
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ReyosB @politicoid_us and
2> anything either way. Studies say it helps, studies say it does nothing, and even studies say it increases risks, and some even give similar reasons (those micro abrasions that the one you just sent talk about, tighter skin tears more easily, and the gliding function of >>
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ReyosB @politicoid_us and
3> foreskin reduces friction, which would be the greatest cause of these abrasions and tears.) These show no benefits which: A) make violation of the medical standard, surgery as a last resort acceptable B) require this to be done on infants given
@AmerAcadPeds admits >>1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ReyosB @politicoid_us and
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. >>
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
5> That leads them to understate the complications of circumcision, as adult men are able to complain of their issues immediately and know the difference, infants circumcised grow up with their problems as normal and the causes ignored.
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.