German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Galloism]

Originally?

Just tell me how we can get together and, *ahem* settle this peacefully.

Let's not.

This is a thread about circumcision, and while relative levels of horniness is a very interesting subject, it is not the one of this thread.

[Seperates]

Just tell me how we can get together and, *ahem* settle this peacefully.

Let's not.

This is a thread about circumcision, and while relative levels of horniness is a very interesting subject, it is not the one of this thread.

*sighs* *turns off emergency sirens* *picks up bullhorn* FALSE ALARM. WE ARE NOW CODE BLUE, I REPEAT, WE HAVE CODE BLUE. RETURN TO THE ACTIVITIES YOU WERE ORIGINALLY DOING. I REPEAT, THIS WAS A FALSE ALARM.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Let's not.

This is a thread about circumcision, and while relative levels of horniness is a very interesting subject, it is not the one of this thread.

*sighs* *turns off emergency sirens* *picks up bullhorn* FALSE ALARM. WE ARE NOW CODE BLUE, I REPEAT, WE HAVE CODE BLUE. RETURN TO THE ACTIVITIES YOU WERE ORIGINALLY DOING. I REPEAT, THIS WAS A FALSE ALARM.

TS is sad now. TS does not like Code Blue. TS likes Code Kinky.

[Seperates]

*sighs* *turns off emergency sirens* *picks up bullhorn* FALSE ALARM. WE ARE NOW CODE BLUE, I REPEAT, WE HAVE CODE BLUE. RETURN TO THE ACTIVITIES YOU WERE ORIGINALLY DOING. I REPEAT, THIS WAS A FALSE ALARM.

TS is sad now. TS does not like Code Blue. TS likes Code Kinky.

That is Code Funky Purple, because of the awesome shag carpets inside hippie vans.

[No Water No Moon]

Just reposting these.

Nobody's touched those.

Okay - now I'm going to present some sources that either conflict what Dr Aaron Tobian claims, or offer other evidence.

First - we often see the claim that penile cancer can be avoided completely through circumcision.

I've already rebutted that, by presenting a source discussing post-circumcision penile cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3944860

But it's worth further investigation - because it's worth noting that all of the conclusions about the 100% effectiveness of circumcision as combat against cancer... ultimately end up rooted in the same source. A Lancet article from 1932 by Dr A L Wolbarst. (Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932;1:150-3.)

Dr A L Wolbarst, by the way, was an executive committee member of the "Jewish Protectory and Aid Society" - which doesn't invalidate his conclusions, but does suggest there could be bias, if the data cannot be shown to be worthy.

So, let's talk about the data. Dr A L Wolbarst also claimed in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure. JAMA 1914;62:92-7.) in 1914, that circumcision cured masturbation. And epilepsy. And prevented infant death. There seems to be some bias in his methodology, doesn't there?

What about the data set he used for the Lancet conclusions? Well, first - he didn't collect direct data. He used hospital reports, for which he didn't actually verify circumcision status. There was no control group. So, by what measure did he decide that circumcision was 100% protection against penile cancer? In his data - none of the cases of penile cancer he reviewed were in Jews. That was his smoking gun - none of them were Jews, and Jews are circumcised shortly after birth - therefore, circumcision prevents penile cancer.

In other words - the 'circumcision cures cancer' argument is based on the poor methodology of one pro-circumcision Jew, almost a century ago.


Which - obviously, does not completely invalidate the data. But it does mean it should be questioned, rigorously.

On the other hand, the fact that I've already linked a source detailing the incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men does rather invalidate the conclusion.

So, let's look at some other data about penile cancer raters, and circumcisions:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/frisch/

Conclusion? Given the ridiculously low rate of circumcision in Denmark, and the overall downward trend in penile cancer - and given the correlation of the cancer with marital status... "It seems plausible that better penile hygiene resulting from this improvement in sanitary installations might have contributed to the observed trend."

Yep. Washing your junk is more important than being chopped.

Okay, more data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/brinton1/

Conclusion? Phimosis, previous disease, extramarital relationships and hygiene matter. "This study supports the need for further evaluation of the role of hygiene and sexually transmitted agents in the etiology of penile cancer."

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/maden/

Conclusion? There's a correlation between neonatal circumcision and cancer. However - it's statistically about as significant as smoking. And the most significant indicators? Genital warts - about twice as common. "Of 67 tumors tested for HPV DNA, 49% were positive;" and "reported history of penile rash", about three times as common.

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/harish/

Conclusion? One of the pieces of data that is consistently overlooked in discussions of penile cancer is tobacco use. And yet, if someone uses two forms of tobacco - e.g. smoking and chewing - then the risk is more than the statistical significance of phimosis.

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/cupp1/

Conclusion? In a study where the number of males circumcised as children and as adults were about equal - "The prevalence of human papillomavirus DNA is significantly greater in carcinoma of the penis than in control tissue. Moreover, the prevalence is greater in noninvasive lesions (carcinoma in situ and penile intraepithelial neoplasia) than in invasive carcinoma."

More data:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/2.full.pdf

"The results obtained by Maden et al. corroborate previous work that demonstrated an association between lack of neonatal circumcision and the development of penile cancer. However, the new study reported circumcision at birth in 20% of the men with penile cancer... To better understand the pathogenesis of this disease, the interplay between HPV, chronic irritation, circumcision, smoking, and genetic factors must be considered in future studies."

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/boczko/

"This historic article conclusively disproves the false claims made by circumcision promoter Abraham Wolbarst in 1932 that circumcision prevents penile cancer. This article probably accurately reflects the state of medical knowledge at the time. The most important risk factors for penile cancer, which are the presence of human papilloma virus and use of tobacco, had not yet been discovered at the time this article was written."

Also - data about HPV:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook2/

"...uncircumcised men had a lower prevalence of genital warts than circumcised men...", "Circumcised men were more likely than uncircumcised men to have genital warts, but when present, warts were more often located on the distal portion of the penis among uncircumcised men. This paradox is not understood, but could reflect either non-specific resistance to proximal penile warts conferred by the foreskin, or heightened susceptibility to various HPV types in uncircumcised men, some of which may confer subsequent immunity to genital warts."


...More later... (Is this the kind of thing you wanted?)

[Dilange]

Germany is stupid. Circumcision is "assault" now....how laughable. Whats next, making all contact sports "assault". Come on Germany, how stupid are you? It's the Nazis I swear.

[No Water No Moon]

Germany is stupid. Circumcision is "assault" now....how laughable. Whats next, making all contact sports "assault". Come on Germany, how stupid are you? It's the Nazis I swear.

viewtopic.php?p=9936561#p9936561

[Dilange]

Germany is stupid. Circumcision is "assault" now....how laughable. Whats next, making all contact sports "assault". Come on Germany, how stupid are you? It's the Nazis I swear.

viewtopic.php?p=9936561#p9936561

1) I was joking about the Nazis.
2) Im not reform, im conservative

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Nobody's touched those.

Okay - now I'm going to present some sources that either conflict what Dr Aaron Tobian claims, or offer other evidence.

First - we often see the claim that penile cancer can be avoided completely through circumcision.

I've already rebutted that, by presenting a source discussing post-circumcision penile cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3944860

But it's worth further investigation - because it's worth noting that all of the conclusions about the 100% effectiveness of circumcision as combat against cancer... ultimately end up rooted in the same source. A Lancet article from 1932 by Dr A L Wolbarst. (Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932;1:150-3.)

Dr A L Wolbarst, by the way, was an executive committee member of the "Jewish Protectory and Aid Society" - which doesn't invalidate his conclusions, but does suggest there could be bias, if the data cannot be shown to be worthy.

So, let's talk about the data. Dr A L Wolbarst also claimed in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Universal circumcision as a sanitary measure. JAMA 1914;62:92-7.) in 1914, that circumcision cured masturbation. And epilepsy. And prevented infant death. There seems to be some bias in his methodology, doesn't there?

What about the data set he used for the Lancet conclusions? Well, first - he didn't collect direct data. He used hospital reports, for which he didn't actually verify circumcision status. There was no control group. So, by what measure did he decide that circumcision was 100% protection against penile cancer? In his data - none of the cases of penile cancer he reviewed were in Jews. That was his smoking gun - none of them were Jews, and Jews are circumcised shortly after birth - therefore, circumcision prevents penile cancer.

In other words - the 'circumcision cures cancer' argument is based on the poor methodology of one pro-circumcision Jew, almost a century ago.


Which - obviously, does not completely invalidate the data. But it does mean it should be questioned, rigorously.

On the other hand, the fact that I've already linked a source detailing the incidence of penile cancer in circumcised men does rather invalidate the conclusion.

So, let's look at some other data about penile cancer raters, and circumcisions:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/frisch/

Conclusion? Given the ridiculously low rate of circumcision in Denmark, and the overall downward trend in penile cancer - and given the correlation of the cancer with marital status... "It seems plausible that better penile hygiene resulting from this improvement in sanitary installations might have contributed to the observed trend."

Yep. Washing your junk is more important than being chopped.

Okay, more data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/brinton1/

Conclusion? Phimosis, previous disease, extramarital relationships and hygiene matter. "This study supports the need for further evaluation of the role of hygiene and sexually transmitted agents in the etiology of penile cancer."

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/maden/

Conclusion? There's a correlation between neonatal circumcision and cancer. However - it's statistically about as significant as smoking. And the most significant indicators? Genital warts - about twice as common. "Of 67 tumors tested for HPV DNA, 49% were positive;" and "reported history of penile rash", about three times as common.

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/harish/

Conclusion? One of the pieces of data that is consistently overlooked in discussions of penile cancer is tobacco use. And yet, if someone uses two forms of tobacco - e.g. smoking and chewing - then the risk is more than the statistical significance of phimosis.

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/cupp1/

Conclusion? In a study where the number of males circumcised as children and as adults were about equal - "The prevalence of human papillomavirus DNA is significantly greater in carcinoma of the penis than in control tissue. Moreover, the prevalence is greater in noninvasive lesions (carcinoma in situ and penile intraepithelial neoplasia) than in invasive carcinoma."

More data:

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/85/1/2.full.pdf

"The results obtained by Maden et al. corroborate previous work that demonstrated an association between lack of neonatal circumcision and the development of penile cancer. However, the new study reported circumcision at birth in 20% of the men with penile cancer... To better understand the pathogenesis of this disease, the interplay between HPV, chronic irritation, circumcision, smoking, and genetic factors must be considered in future studies."

More data:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/boczko/

"This historic article conclusively disproves the false claims made by circumcision promoter Abraham Wolbarst in 1932 that circumcision prevents penile cancer. This article probably accurately reflects the state of medical knowledge at the time. The most important risk factors for penile cancer, which are the presence of human papilloma virus and use of tobacco, had not yet been discovered at the time this article was written."

Also - data about HPV:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook2/

"...uncircumcised men had a lower prevalence of genital warts than circumcised men...", "Circumcised men were more likely than uncircumcised men to have genital warts, but when present, warts were more often located on the distal portion of the penis among uncircumcised men. This paradox is not understood, but could reflect either non-specific resistance to proximal penile warts conferred by the foreskin, or heightened susceptibility to various HPV types in uncircumcised men, some of which may confer subsequent immunity to genital warts."


...More later... (Is this the kind of thing you wanted?)

Ironically, my sources mention only in brief penile cancer.

[No Water No Moon]

viewtopic.php?p=9936561#p9936561

1) I was joking about the Nazis.
2) Im not reform, im conservative

I'm... not discussing your religion. I don't know your religion.

I was discussing the influence of the Reformists in German, and European, history. It seems relevant.

[No Water No Moon]

Ironically, my sources mention only in brief penile cancer.

I don't know what you want, then.

You presented a source which cites a number of references, and makes a number of claims.

I've started addressing what was in the source that you claimed no one was addressing and - rather than address any of the substantive points I've made... you say: "Ironically, my sources mention only in brief penile cancer."

So far I've ONLY really discussed the flawed 'penile cancer' element, and barely touched on HPV (which is related) issue - and already I feel like I'm wasting my time, because you're really not up it, and you have no intention of actually dealing with it.

As such, I'm starting to consider your citation of the source to be dishonest - you didn't WANT anyone to address it - you just wanted to pretend it somehow ended the debate - despite the fatal flaws, a number of which I've already illustrated.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

Ironically, my sources mention only in brief penile cancer.

I don't know what you want, then.

You presented a source which cites a number of references, and makes a number of claims.

I've started addressing what was in the source that you claimed no one was addressing and - rather than address any of the substantive points I've made... you say: "Ironically, my sources mention only in brief penile cancer."

So far I've ONLY really discussed the flawed 'penile cancer' element, and barely touched on HPV (which is related) issue - and already I feel like I'm wasting my time, because you're really not up it, and you have no intention of actually dealing with it.

As such, I'm starting to consider your citation of the source to be dishonest - you didn't WANT anyone to address it - you just wanted to pretend it somehow ended the debate - despite the fatal flaws, a number of which I've already illustrated.

I highly doubt he will ever read or acknowledge any of that, and instead is going to do anything to make his view seem superior.

[No Water No Moon]

I don't know what you want, then.

You presented a source which cites a number of references, and makes a number of claims.

I've started addressing what was in the source that you claimed no one was addressing and - rather than address any of the substantive points I've made... you say: "Ironically, my sources mention only in brief penile cancer."

So far I've ONLY really discussed the flawed 'penile cancer' element, and barely touched on HPV (which is related) issue - and already I feel like I'm wasting my time, because you're really not up it, and you have no intention of actually dealing with it.

As such, I'm starting to consider your citation of the source to be dishonest - you didn't WANT anyone to address it - you just wanted to pretend it somehow ended the debate - despite the fatal flaws, a number of which I've already illustrated.

I highly doubt he will ever read or acknowledge any of that, and instead is going to do anything to make his view seem superior.

Well, I was like half way through the next section... which I'm putting on hold.

"The Mongol Ilkhanate" didn't even make an argument - he just cited someone else's work. And apparently, now, he has no intention of defending it or discussing it. I find that incredibly intellectually dishonest, and I'm frankly not going to waste any more time on it unless he steps his game up a whole hell of a lot.

[Nazis in Space]

I highly doubt he will ever read or acknowledge any of that, and instead is going to do anything to make his view seem superior.

Well, I was like half way through the next section... which I'm putting on hold.

"The Mongol Ilkhanate" didn't even make an argument - he just cited someone else's work. And apparently, now, he has no intention of defending it or discussing it. I find that incredibly intellectually dishonest, and I'm frankly not going to waste any more time on it unless he steps his game up a whole hell of a lot.

Welcome to the club. The bar's over there.

[Tmutarakhan]

we often see the claim that penile cancer can be avoided completely through circumcision.

I've already rebutted that, by presenting a source discussing post-circumcision penile cancer.

What you find in such sources is that they are either lumping together invasive and non-invasive cancers, which are quite different, and it is the invasive sort which we need to be concerned about; or that the vast majority of the rare cases of circumcised invasive penile cancer involve adult circumcision, after the foreskin has already manifested disease, and had evidently already begun metastasizing cancer cells, or incomplete circumcisions, in which the foreskin was not properly removed; there are a handful of residual cases, all of which so far as I can find involved unusual traumas to the penis.

it's worth noting that all of the conclusions about the 100% effectiveness of circumcision as combat against cancer... ultimately end up rooted in the same source. A Lancet article from 1932 by Dr A L Wolbarst.

This is totally untrue, as you should know since I have cited the International Registries, and in the 4ST thread a variety of medical literature, not including Wolbarst's article. The claim that Wolbarst is the only source is itself something that traces from only one source: a David Gollaher, whose work (there is no polite way to put this) is filled with downright lies, as well as distorted interpretations, plus malicious conspiracy theories. The "cirp.org" site which you are fond of has followed his approach, and likewise has fully earned its reputation for dishonesty and paranoia.

Given the ridiculously low rate of circumcision in Denmark, and the overall downward trend in penile cancer - and given the correlation of the cancer with marital status... "It seems plausible that better penile hygiene resulting from this improvement in sanitary installations might have contributed to the observed trend."

Yep. Washing your junk is more important than being chopped.

Yes, proper hygiene definitely reduces the risks among the uncircumcised. The risk among the infant-circumcised, however, remains immeasurably close to zero, in Denmark as everywhere else.

[NMaa940]

Timur, the infant penile cancer rate for ALL children (circumcised or not) is next to zero.

[Lialoth]

Yes, proper hygiene definitely reduces the risks among the uncircumcised. The risk among the infant-circumcised, however, remains immeasurably close to zero, in Denmark as everywhere else.^{[citation needed]}

Yeah. The source you linked doesn't mention circumcision status at all. In fact, if anything, it proves the opposite! Really, please stop trying to say that the source in question says the exact opposite of what it does.

[Tmutarakhan]

Yes, proper hygiene definitely reduces the risks among the uncircumcised. The risk among the infant-circumcised, however, remains immeasurably close to zero, in Denmark as everywhere else.^{[citation needed]}

Yeah. The source you linked doesn't mention circumcision status at all. In fact, if anything, it proves the opposite! Really, please stop trying to say that the source in question says the exact opposite of what it does.

The source in question does not mention circumcision status, you are correct. That is why it does not prove anything on the issue. It only goes to demonstrate the limited point that hygiene can also help reduce the rates-- though not as much as circumcision; for that you need to look at countries with universal or near-universal circumcision, or to look at studies which actually do mention circumcision status.

[NMaa940]

It only goes to demonstrate the limited point that hygiene can also help reduce the rates-- though not as much as circumcision; for that you need to look at countries with universal or near-universal circumcision, or to look at studies which actually do mention circumcision status.

The rates aren't any different.

[Lialoth]

The source in question does not mention circumcision status, you are correct. That is why it does not prove anything on the issue. It only goes to demonstrate the limited point that hygiene can also help reduce the rates-- though not as much as circumcision; for that you need to look at countries with universal or near-universal circumcision, or to look at studies which actually do mention circumcision status.

Then provide one that actually does list circumcision status and hasn't thus far been discredited, please.

[Tmutarakhan]

Mutilate suggest debilitation. There is no such debilitation.

Scarification is mutilation, but does not necessarily require debility.

No, it's not. Words have meaning, and when you insist on stretching words for cases where their original meanings do not apply, then you make it difficult to express what the original meaning is intended. What is happening in Syria involves mass killing, but is not "genocide"; Bluth's spiritual theories may have merit, but are not "Christianity"; Obama's health care policies expand the public role but are not "communism".

[Tmutarakhan]

It only goes to demonstrate the limited point that hygiene can also help reduce the rates-- though not as much as circumcision; for that you need to look at countries with universal or near-universal circumcision, or to look at studies which actually do mention circumcision status.

The rates aren't any different.

The data says otherwise. I am sick to death of your side's constant inability to be honest.

[Lialoth]

The data says otherwise. I am sick to death of your side's constant inability to be honest.

I've actually shown him the numbers. There's really no rhyme or reason to which places have high penile cancer rates and which ones don't.

[NMaa940]

The data says otherwise. I am sick to death of your side's constant inability to be honest.

Show me. Not that I really care - I am fine with an infinitesimally small cancer rate if it means preserving human dignity.

[Tmutarakhan]

The source in question does not mention circumcision status, you are correct. That is why it does not prove anything on the issue. It only goes to demonstrate the limited point that hygiene can also help reduce the rates-- though not as much as circumcision; for that you need to look at countries with universal or near-universal circumcision, or to look at studies which actually do mention circumcision status.

Then provide one that actually does list circumcision status and hasn't thus far been discredited, please.

Not only have I provided the global data, DOZENS OF TIMES NOW, along with papers that did comprehensive searches of the body of American medical literature, but the other side, also, has posted papers on post-circumcision cancers, finding only negligible numbers of such cases, almost exclusively attributable to adult circumcisions (after the foreskin has already caused problems) or incomplete circumcisions (with dishonest attempts to say that it is the fault of circumcision, rather than the incompleteness of the circumcision, that in all these cases the cancers started in the foreskin remnant).
EDIT: I mean, come on. You are, in fact, the one who said that extracting the raw data was too hard; then you claimed you had looked at it, but made assertions (like claiming that Islamic countries were excluded) indicating that you hadn't; I pointed you to the thread where I had made large extracts from the raw data and linked to various papers, with explanations of what was going on in each. But it seems you won't accept raw medical research, because it's hard to read; nor summations of it, because it is from me; only summations from a site whose untrustworthiness has been pointed out.