It seems to "add up" only for experts from countries that do it traditionally (USA, Turkey, Israel) and recommend it, while basically no European country deems it medically necessary to recommend it, because there it is not traditionally practiced. In some European countries, like Sweden, Germany and Finaland, recently there were even attampts to legally consider circumcision as genital mutilation.
For me most of those 60% studies seem to be some sort of rationalisation based on a predetermined outcome: Let's find some strained statistical "evidence" that this stone age ritual that we are practicing, is somehow medically beneficial, so we can continue to cut our kids genitals to look like their father's without a bad conscience.
> There is compelling evidence that ... by approximately 60%
Did you ever read one of these 60%-papers yourselves and evaluated their reasoning, at how they arrive at their whopping 60%?
Their evidence is btw, even if published in medical journals, completely non-medical. All of those studies just claim that their strained stats show it, but they do not explain why. There is no established chain of causation and even the correlation is doubtful.
Here is a list of counter-arguments, basically claiming that the pro-arguments have been faked by circumcision proponents, many of them (like Prof Brian Morris who authored sevaral of these papers) being "circumfetishists", engaging in circumcisions for sexual pleasure, or having a Jewish background.
It seems to "add up" only for experts from countries that do it traditionally (USA, Turkey, Israel) and recommend it, while basically no European country deems it medically necessary to recommend it, because there it is not traditionally practiced. In some European countries, like Sweden, Germany and Finaland, recently there were even attampts to legally consider circumcision as genital mutilation.
For me most of those 60% studies seem to be some sort of rationalisation based on a predetermined outcome: Let's find some strained statistical "evidence" that this stone age ritual that we are practicing, is somehow medically beneficial, so we can continue to cut our kids genitals to look like their father's without a bad conscience.
> There is compelling evidence that ... by approximately 60%
Did you ever read one of these 60%-papers yourselves and evaluated their reasoning, at how they arrive at their whopping 60%?
Their evidence is btw, even if published in medical journals, completely non-medical. All of those studies just claim that their strained stats show it, but they do not explain why. There is no established chain of causation and even the correlation is doubtful.
Here is a list of counter-arguments, basically claiming that the pro-arguments have been faked by circumcision proponents, many of them (like Prof Brian Morris who authored sevaral of these papers) being "circumfetishists", engaging in circumcisions for sexual pleasure, or having a Jewish background.
[1] http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf
[2] http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
[3] http://www.circumstitions.com/
[3.2] http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
[3.1] http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
[3.3] http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA-garenne.html