I wish you read the thread from the start. Our friend’s argument suggested that Australia’s circ rate had a huge impact on infant mortality rates. That’s false.
-
-
You've given no proof that it's false, only conjecture based on a hand-picked list of institutions NOT mentioning it. That doesn't prove anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Lol. The burden of proof goes both ways my friend. Find a source that says circumcision is a major cause of infant death then will ya.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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 -
Yeah, the CDC and WHO base their perspective on circumcision on several very flawed studies that were performed under poor control in Africa. It's already being shown that male circumcision campaigns are not having a significant preventive effect on HIV transmission.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
As for the AAP, a representative is on record stating that if they were to backpedal on their stance on circumcision, they would essentially be opening themselves up to lawsuits from many thousands of men who are livid about being sexually violated.
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.