This is a classic bit of bait-and-switch arguing. What has cancer got to do with Christ? It's as though nobody ever really trusts any single reason for circumcising (and well they shouldn't!), so they always have a backup (and when that backup is debunked, another backup). It's like playing Twister on this diagram: http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/meme-c-6.jpg
Both buffydaddy's claims about cancer are quite wrong. (See http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html and http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html#cervical)
Seyam et al in Saudi Arabia found 18 cases of penile cancer in circumcised men, apparently associated with the circumcision scar.
The main study on which the cervical cancer claim is based, by Castellsagué et al. was a meta-analysis of seven studies in five countries, in only one of which (the Philippines) were most of the men circumcised, so it was really a comparison of countries, and any of a number of demographic differences (such as women smoking) could account for the difference. In fact even then it only found significance for HPV, and for cancer itself only in a small high-risk subsample.
Comment Reply
This is a classic bit of bait-and-switch arguing. What has cancer got to do with Christ? It's as though nobody ever really trusts any single reason for circumcising (and well they shouldn't!), so they always have a backup (and when that backup is debunked, another backup). It's like playing Twister on this diagram: http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/meme-c-6.jpg
Both buffydaddy's claims about cancer are quite wrong. (See http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html and http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html#cervical)
Seyam et al in Saudi Arabia found 18 cases of penile cancer in circumcised men, apparently associated with the circumcision scar.
The main study on which the cervical cancer claim is based, by Castellsagué et al. was a meta-analysis of seven studies in five countries, in only one of which (the Philippines) were most of the men circumcised, so it was really a comparison of countries, and any of a number of demographic differences (such as women smoking) could account for the difference. In fact even then it only found significance for HPV, and for cancer itself only in a small high-risk subsample.
March 24, 2010 - 8:46pmThis Comment
Reply