Neither of those studies controlled for iatrogenic harm. They're garbage studies.
It's mind-boggling to me that you still don't understand basic math. I'll simply it for you, again: The risk rate of circumcision is such that you cause more problems than you prevent.
-
-
2 is not larger than 10. I even simplified the problem for you.
-
The risk of infection caused by circumcision is at least double the risk of infection by not circumcising. You literally cause more harm than you prevent.
-
Once again, the 2% of circumcised men is a smaller real number than 1% of the entire male population of earth
-
Once again, 0% of circumcised men is the smallest real number.
-
What did you mean by this?
-
It means that 100% of circucmsions cause guaranteed harm by ablating functional tissue, which you keep dangerously and dishonestly failing to include in your crappy cost-benefit analyses.
-
I just don’t think it’s ok to weigh up a baby’s life against some swollen tissue.
-
Show me a single baby who died because he wasn't circumcised. In contrast, I can show you many who died because they were: http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
- 24 more replies
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.