Nice job, ml, and thanks for posting it. These are the facts that need to be posted rather than the slanted and made up stuff I requested be removed.

There is nothing to be argued with in these policy statements. They do, however, not state the health benefits to women which have been measured. Circumcision of the male does reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in women by 20-50%. This is measured both by the incidence of cervical cancer in societies where circumcision is common and uncommon and also compare rates within societies between women married to circumcised and uncircumcised men. "Proof," no; "Statistical confidence," high.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Here is some additional information to take under consideration ML in your research, which is well stated:[/SIZE][/FONT]

1)"[SIZE=3]higher prevalence of infection in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men (19.6% vs. 5.5%)" p.9-11. Additionally realize the crux was to push for Gardasil and to limit the HPV cases & STD'S in the US. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Cited CDC in conjunction with Dept of Health & Human Services. I found most interesting the rates cited out of the US. You can post against the procedure; however, fairly the sources that are pro & their rationale should be included as well. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]As I stated multiple times; informed, parental consent without a bias. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]Much like informing women regarding the BCP--every implementation has failure and risks.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=3]2) Additionally I found According to the BMC Infectious Dieseases (2006):[/SIZE]

“Male circumcision, which is routinely practiced in the Middle East, northern and western Africa, and western Asia, was associated with lower rates of certain STIs, HIV and cervical cancer (a proxy for HPV), but not with infections transmitted by non-sexual routes. In general, more male circumcision was strongly associated with lower cervical cancer rates and fewer HIV cases, independent of religion. Furthermore, male circumcision was independently associated with HIV among countries with primarily heterosexual HIV transmission, and not among countries with primarily homosexual or injection drug use HIV transmission. These findings all suggest that male circumcision is a true protective factor that reduces the sexual transmission of HIV and possibly HPV, independent of Muslim and Christian religions.”

3)Additional info from another source:

[FONT=arial, helvetica]"Background It is uncertain whether male circumcision reduces the risks of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in the man and of cervical cancer in his female partner. [/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Methods We pooled data on 1913 couples enrolled in one of seven case–control studies of cervical carcinoma in situ and cervical cancer in five countries. Circumcision status was self-reported, and the accuracy of the data was confirmed by physical examination at three study sites. The presence or absence of penile HPV DNA was assessed by a polymerase-chain-reaction assay in 1520 men and yielded a valid result in the case of 1139 men (74.9 percent).

Results Penile HPV was detected in 166 of the 847 uncircumcised men (19.6 percent) and in 16 of the 292 circumcised men (5.5 percent). After adjustment for age at first intercourse, lifetime number of sexual partners, and other potential confounders, circumcised men were less likely than uncircumcised men to have HPV infection (odds ratio, 0.37; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.85). Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than women whose partners were uncircumcised (adjusted odds ratio, 0.42; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.23 to 0.79). Results were similar in the subgroup of men in whom circumcision was confirmed by medical examination.

Conclusions Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners. "

Cited NEJM
[/FONT]

[QUOTE=Brandye;217534]Nice job, ml, and thanks for posting it. These are the facts that need to be posted rather than the slanted and made up stuff I requested be removed.

There is nothing to be argued with in these policy statements. They do, however, not state the health benefits to women which have been measured. Circumcision of the male does reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in women by 20-50%. This is measured both by the incidence of cervical cancer in societies where circumcision is common and uncommon and also compare rates within societies between women married to circumcised and uncircumcised men. "Proof," no; "Statistical confidence," high.[/QUOTE]

Hey, it's been a really long time since I visited this forum. And I find this topic very interesting for me because it's been something I never applied any thought to in my younger years, but have been researching quite a bit in my spare time for the last 1 - 2 years.

Brandye, I'm curious about how strongly you feel about having infants subjected to this procedure in order to protect women from cervical cancer via HPV. I have a few questions for you regarding this.

1) If HPV can be inoculated against with antiviral injections before a female is sexually active (or before the age of 25), then why wouldn't you advocate that instead of male circumcision? It's far less invasive and has a much higher success rate doesn't it?

2) What about the numerous studies that have found no correlation between cervical cancer and uncircumcised men? (I can find and source them if you like).

3) You imply that loss of sexual stimulation is simply "over-reacting male emotion" [sic], but, what about the recent studies that show that sexual stimulation can suffer by up to 90%? Also, some more recent studies show that the sex is far less pleasurable for women as well because it results in harder and deeper thrusting and less lubrication (meaning greater levels of soreness and irritation for women).

Can you also please site the studies from which you gather your 20%-50%
cervical cancer reduction?

This topic has had some heated argument, but I hope that we can be civil with each other and listen to each others argument regardless of medical qualification.

For anyone who has never seen the surgery, I strongly recommend watching it.

Here is a link: Circumcision Video

Thanks

p.s. My apologies if this is the wrong area to put this. But the other threads are starting to get spammed so I posted here.

Look around. Withinm the first few weeks of Gardasil becoming available, I urged everyone to pass on the information.

I got heated response from some that I was encouraging promiscuity in youth.

No further response

ml posts links back to all his sources, Brandye and sera300 don't. Nor do they provide citations adequate for finding the original information.

ml posts nothing but the information, Brandye and sera300 add their opinions and arguments. So around we go again. I hope the personal attacks (especially the ones that are so vagueit is hard to understand why they are being made) won't enter this thread, also the demands for medical qualifications (made by people who claim to have them, but so incoherently that their claims are thrown into doubt, and others who write in such a similar style that multiple identities seem very likely).

ml asks:
[QUOTE]Can you also please site the studies from which you gather your 20%-50% cervical cancer reduction?[/QUOTE]Yes please, and also explain how, given a figure from the UN of one woman in 88 (in New Zealand, where circumcision is rare - I haven't been able to find comparable figures for other non-circumcising countries) contracting cervical cancer, the circumcision of 176 (assuming 50% reduction) to 440 (assuming 20%) baby boys to prevent one case of cervical cancer decades later can be justified?

sera's second source proves to be BMC Infect Dis. 2006; 6: 172. Male circumcision, religion, and infectious diseases: an ecologic analysis of 118 developing countries Paul K Drain, Daniel T Halperin, James P Hughes, Jeffrey D Klausner, and Robert C Bailey. Halperin, Klausner and Bailey are well known proponents of circumcision for any and every disease. (Halperin is on record as thinking his descent from a ritual circumcisor means “maybe in some small way I’m ‘destined’ to help pass along [circumcision] to people in [other] parts of the world … .” (Cover Story: The Case for Circumcision. By Gordy Slack. The East Bay Express Online. May 19-24, 2000.) Whatever else that it, it’s not science.) I haven't looked into the study itself, but excuse me if I stay very, very skeptical. They have a vast amount of data on which they have performed a vast amount of analysis, opening the way for a variety of biases. For example by selecting countries you can leave out embarrassing facts before you start.

In her third example, sera quotes (but doesn't cite) the same study as before (Xavier Castellsagué, M.D., F. Xavier Bosch, M.D., Nubia Muñoz, M.D., Chris J.L.M. Meijer, Ph.D., Keerti V. Shah, Dr.P.H., Silvia de Sanjosé, M.D., José Eluf-Neto, M.D., Corazon A. Ngelangel, M.D., Saibua Chichareon, M.D., Jennifer S. Smith, Ph.D., Rolando Herrero, M.D., Victor Moreno, M.D., Silvia Franceschi, M.D. Male Circumcision, Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical Cancer in Female Partners. The New England Journal of Medicine Volume 346:1105-1112 April 11, 2002 Number 15), and my rebuttal is the same as before. In brief, they pooled data from seven studies in five countries, but almost all the circumcised men were in one of those countries, the Philippines, so they were really comparing countries, and we know that cervical cancer varies widely from country to country. Their claim of significance depends on the circumcision status of a total of six men.

sera's first quotation
[QUOTE]"higher prevalence of infection in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men (19.6% vs. 5.5%)" p.9-11. ... Cited CDC in conjunction with Dept of Health & Human Services.[/QUOTE] is not a citation. For a start, I assume sera means the Centers for Disease Control, and not the Canterbury Development Corporation, the Control Data Corporation, the Climate Diagnostics Center, etc. etc. Nor does she say what document the pages 9-11 are from. (It is not clear how one line of text spreads across three pages.) Still, by googling the text, I found it in the Report to Congress on the Prevention of Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services, by Julie Louise Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H. Director, January 2004.

On p9 I found this paragraph.
[QUOTE]The prevalence of genital HPV infection in men is more difficult to assess because it is not clear which are the optimal anatomic sites or specimens to test. Most published studies have been conducted outside the United States, in men attending STD or university clinics, or among male partners of women with HPV infection. HPV DNA can be detected at various anogenital sites, including the penis, urethra, scrotum, or anus, as well as in urine and semen (44-56). In heterosexual men, infection is most commonly detected on the penis (54-57). A recent study that evaluated HPV DNA in the distal penis (urethra, glans, coronal sulcus, foreskin) documented higher prevalence of infection in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men (19.6% vs. 5.5%) (46). Prevalence of genital HPV infection in heterosexual men in the populations studied ranges from 16–45%; detection is highly dependent on the anatomic sites or specimens tested (e.g., urine, semen) (45;46;49;52). Risk factors for HPV detection in men include greater lifetime number of sex partners, number of recent sex partners, being uncircumcised, or current genital warts (45;46;52). The relationship of young age with HPV detection is not as consistent in men as in women (45;49;52).[/QUOTE]
So sera's "citation" is actually a secondary source. Naughty. But at least now we know the "infection" referred to is HPV, which sera wouldn't tell me last time.

And reference 46 proves to be:
[QUOTE](46) Castellsague X, Bosch FX, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV, de Sanjose S et al. Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. New England Journal of Medicine 2002; 346(15):1105-1112.[/QUOTE] Funny, that looks familar.... sera's "two" sources of information are actually both the same (flawed) source. If she is really studying for a PhD, as rdan05 says, her supervisor should take her aside and give her a stern warning. That kind of sloppiness gets people flunked.

[QUOTE=Brandye;217569]Look around. Withinm the first few weeks of Gardasil becoming available, I urged everyone to pass on the information.

I got heated response from some that I was encouraging promiscuity in youth.

No further response[/QUOTE]

Ok, thanks for your candor. What are your views specifically on the position that the BMA takes regarding routine neonatal circumcision for medical purposes?

[QUOTE=ml66uk]
[COLOR="RoyalBlue">British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcision -guidance for doctors[/COLOR]
Circumcision for medical purposes:
to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.
[/QUOTE]

Do you feel then, that it is unethical as the BMA suggests, for you to recommend circumcision as a medically preventative measure against cervical cancer in women when there are less invasive and harmful measures to be taken? Is it unethical to also suggest it [circumcision] as a measure to reduce STD's when all that need be done is education regarding the use of condoms?

How much more effective are condoms than male circumcision for reducing the likeness of contracting an STD?

[QUOTE=Brandye;217534]...They do, however, not state the health benefits to women which have been measured. Circumcision of the male does reduce the incidence of cervical cancer in women by 20-50%. This is measured both by the incidence of cervical cancer in societies where circumcision is common and uncommon and also compare rates within societies between women married to circumcised and uncircumcised men....[/QUOTE]

Cancer of the Cervix in Reference to Circumcision and Marital History
Elizabeth Stern, M.D., Peter Neely, Ph.D.
Journal of the American Medical Women's Association
Vol. 17, No. 9 (Sept. 1962)

"Since the recommendation had been made that circumcision should be used as a preventative measure against cancer of the cervix, we sought further confirmation of this hypothesis. An almost ideal population was that of the well women attending a cancer detection facility, where the population was split almost equally between women whose husbands were circumcised and those whose husbands were not. [COLOR="DarkRed">The discovery rate for cancer of the cervix among non-Jewish women whose marital partners were circumcised was no different from the rate among non-Jewish women with noncircumcised husbands.[/COLOR] Further, the use of a sheath contraceptive by the marital partner, which has an effect equivalent to circumcision in that the cervix is protected from contact with the smegma, was found not to be associated with rate differences for cancer of the cervix."

------
Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1975, p. 961,
Ernst L. Wynder, M.D., American Health Foundation.

"Additional variables observed to be more frequent and of more import among patients with cervical cancer are early age of first intercourse, multiple sexual parners, and low socioeconomic class. [COLOR="DarkRed">Unless there exist surgical reasons (such as phimosis) indicating circumcision in the husband, the procedure would seem unwarranted[/COLOR]."

Relation of circumcision to cancer of the cervix
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., Dec. 15, 1973
Terris, Wilson, Nelson.

"[COLOR="DarkRed">No differences were found in circumcision status of husbands of cervical dysplasia patients and controls. The findings of this study are consistant with those reported by Aitken-Swan and Baird. They fail to provide evidence that circumcision status is related to invasive carcinoma or the cervix, carcinoma in situ, or cervical dysplasia.[/COLOR]"

--------
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., July, 1958
Jones, et al.

"The specific items of importance which have been under scrutiny are: dietary deficiency, estrogen excretion levels, menstrual patterns, hygienic practices, contraceptives, [COLOR="DarkRed">circumcision of marital and other partners[/COLOR], and frequency and duration of coitus; [COLOR="DarkRed">for none of these items was there any significant difference between the cases and their matched controls[/COLOR]."

ok, i want peoples oppinios on this video, they call rutien circumsision genital mutalation and state that it causes males to have less of an orgasm http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=3e2eKFxxfxk