Facebook Pixel

Comment Reply

You say "other sexually transmitted infections such as trichomoniasis and bacterial vaginosis also are decreased in women whose partners have been circumcised. "
Yet as its title implies, this paper: -
J Infect Dis. 2009 Aug 1;200(3):370-378. Adult Male Circumcision Does Not Reduce the Risk of Incident Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis Infection: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Trial in Kenya by Supriya D. Mehta, Stephen Moses, Kawango Agot, Corette Parker, Jeckoniah O. Ndinya-Achola, Ian Maclean, and Robert C. Bailey

- found no reduction in those diseases in men. How, pray, can circumcising men reduce those infections in women without affecting the men?

And it is not enough to show that any procedure "reduces the incidence" of this or that complaint. From what? To what? By the circumcisionists' own figures, it would take >440 circumcisions to prevent one UTI, >1000 to prevent one penile cancer. (In fact, the penile cancer claim has been thoroughly debunked.)

You say "HPV is the cause of virtually all cervical cancer." That's shroud-waving. The great majority of HPV is harmless - it's a very common virus (I must have had it, because I once had a papilloma on my ear - at the site of a piercing) that the body readily gets rid of by itself. This study did not actually look at cervical cancer, only HPV.

Circumcision is a "cure" looking for a disease. It has been looking for cervical cancer since 1904, without success.

You say "circumcision ... should be a consideration in males". Any male who wants to have (the best) part of his penis cut off is perfectly free do do so. The ethical issue is doing it to babies, who are not at risk of contracting HIV - let alone cervical cancer! - and may grow up to resent it bitterly.

January 27, 2011 - 1:53pm


Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy