But putting the mouth on the genitals of a baby? Evil.
-
-
2> twice the rate of cancer causing HPV then intact men, showing a negative there. Above it all every one of these studies still require condom use, which negates any benefit from circumcision. And the claimed benefits are slight, there was a 1.8% ARR in the hiv studies, where >>
-
3> they didn't determine the cause of infection (20% of infections in that part of the world are nonsexual transmission) where the circumcised men had 10% less sexual active time due to wound healing, where the infection status of partners was not even known, so seroconversion>>
-
4> rates, which would be the actual important numbers, could never be calculated. And that's just some of the biggest holes in those studies. We could also talk about how the Navy study showed no HIV benefit, nor did the study into homosexual men in NYC. Only these African trials
-
Ahh so doctor is going to ignore the evidence actually being posted, and start memeing. And here I thought we were having a serious discussion.
-
How the hell can anyone be serious with you? Pass. As I said, the data is clear, you can find conflicting, bully for you. Keep posting. Have fun!
-
So I found data that conflicts with your "clear" evidence, the fact that there is evidence that refutes that data proves it is anything but clear. I am absolutely being serious here, you it appears are not.
-
Wtf? People with this level of cognition become doctors? That is scary. This actually explains why circumcision is still a thing.
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.