Male circumcision opposition supported by poor evidence, paper finds

Article here. Excerpt:

'The first systematic review of claims made by male circumcision opponents has found that counter-arguments tended to be supported by low-quality evidence and opinion.

The study led by University of Sydney Emeritus Professor Brian Morris has been published in the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

In Australia, the circumcision of boys in early infancy was once common. However, over the years rates have declined to about 10 percent, says lead author, University of Sydney Emeritus Professor Brian Morris.

The researchers, from the University of Sydney's School of Medical Sciences and the University of Washington, as well as a scientist in Manchester, found modern media exacerbated misinformation: “in large part… spread by circumcision opponents, much of it via social media and the internet”, says Emeritus Professor Morris.

“We found that claims by circumcision opponents often involved cherry-picking in an attempt to refute the high-quality scientific evidence that undermines their claims.

“When reviewing high-quality evidence, we found that male circumcision – especially when performed in early infancy – is favoured.”'

Like0 Dislike0


Drs. make extra $ selling foreskins or using foreskins in research. They'll be the last to support it.

There is in truth only one argument necessary vs. circ'n. It's this: circ'n involves executing a significant operation that's medically unnec'y on a person incapable of giving consent.

Nothing more needs saying.

Like3 Dislike0