You turn a chart like that in were I work it would be dismissed. It doesn’t back up the claim that there are multiple overlaps. It shows that 222 people out of a supposed 100 had issues and only 3 on the non side were studied.
-
-
Replying to @rjradical @qw_jessie
Either you (and your co-workers, I guess) don't understand the chart, or you are being disingenuous. They are percentages. 75 out of 100, 55 out of 100, etc. It's not 222 b/c it's not cumulative. The numbers on the "non" side are low only b/c so few intact boys have problems.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @qw_jessie
The chart says out of 100,correct? The numbers add up to 222 with no explanation of multiple incidents to 1 individual. Where I work you can’t go more th 15 feet without running into a PhD. The chart is horrible done. From that chart can you deduce how many people had multiple 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2/ailments and which multiple ailments happened? Take 35 will have post op hemorrhaging. How many of those will not breastfeed. You don’t know. It could be all at least 15 to maintain the 25 to reach 100. That’s why the chart is worthless.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rjradical @qw_jessie
Seems like your real problem with the chart is that no rational person weighing the pros and cons of circumcision would look at it & conclude circumcising an infant would be a good idea.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @qw_jessie
No it’s riddled with incomplete data. 75 kids won’t breastfeed. How many of thos 100 moms were going to breast feed? Also, anyone making a decision off a chart on twitter shouldn’t be making those kind of decisions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rjradical @qw_jessie
Again, it's a percentage. Out of 100 boys circumcised, 75 don't readily breastfeed afterward & 25 do. 35 will have post-op hemorrhaging, 65 won't. There's a degree of overlap (10%-35%), but precisely how much is beyond the scope of the chart. Not 222 individuals. Percentages.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Same on the right side of the chart. It's not that "only 3 were studied" as you previously suggested. Those are percentages too. If you still don't get it, try talking to the PhDs at work. Or a 4th grade math teacher.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cooney21 @qw_jessie
That link is also the information in the paperwork you need to fill out at the hospital when you want a circumcision for ones son and should been the counter point in the first place. Actually leaving the other 97 or 98% out it incomplete data 1/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2/unless the study was done over a period of time and followed all 100 subjects to the time they could get one on their own it’s fallible or inconclusive data. Because it’s either a guess or they looked a different group.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not "100 subjects". Percentages. The 97%-98% weren't "left out." They are healthy, problem-free intact boys, who never had a UTI or needed or wanted a circumcision, ever.
Death risk alone (low as it may be) makes elective circumcision of an infant unethical. Right? #i2pic.twitter.com/iB3DXpbrGu
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.