HOLY SHIT!!! AT THE SUPREME COURT TODAY!!!pic.twitter.com/pLtfMGhVfQ
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The first study: Speculative assertions that the removal of fine-touch neuroreceptors of the foreskin, reorganization/atrophy of neural circuitry and keratinisation of the glans penis as a result of circumcision might lower sensitivity and lead to sexual dysfunction-
8,15,16,17 have been refuted by the American Academy of Pediatrics and through evaluations by experts of such reports.14,18,19,20,21,22.
Following the citations, 16 is the study I linked, and 18 is the only citation I see that attempts to refute it. 18 is not a study; it is an opinion piece by B. Morris & J. Waskett, who are not doctors but are known to have a pro-genital-cutting bias. It is not a credible source.
The study that you linked tried to prove ideas and assumptions that has already been debunked by other studies. Nope 18 is a study, it have citations of different studies, shows a clear methodology of their findings, and etc. Just because you don't understand/like it, doesn't-
-mean it's not a study. Morris worked in medical science and you don't have to be a doctor to make conclusive data. Waskett is the same, since he still provide conclusive data for his research. You haven't shown how these studies are wrong, but you don't trust them
Actually, when discussing the "circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis" conclusion, they didn't dispute the data; instead, they gave their opinions on why they think the data, as measured, shouldn't matter. They gave no data of their own.
And of course I don't trust them, because it would be silly to trust pro-genital-cutting opinion pieces written by people who have a known pro-genital-cutting bias.
It doesn't matter their bias, as long they have good data. Pro-vaccinations studies are littered with people who was for vaccines, yet no one bats an eye because they have actual evidence. Biases is study is not rare or new, that's why we rate the actual evidence presented.
Exactly...and the actual evidence presented demonstrates that circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis. The opinion paper cited does not present actual evidence to the contrary, only the opinions of people who have a known pro-genital-cutting bias.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.