On my last post, I discussed a so-called "study" that is making the rounds, which "suggests," but does not actually produce, a causal link between circumcision and a reduced risk of prostate cancer. Nevermind that the claims of this "study" flies in the face of existing real-world data.
It should strike people as odd the time and effort certain "researchers" devote to concoct "studies" that seek to connect circumcision to the "reduction" of some disease. "Researchers" have been trying to justify circumcision, particularly the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, for at least two centuries now. One would think that with all of the data they've supposedly gathered, almost two centuries worth of data, they would use it to come up with a solution that supersedes circumcision. After all, that is the whole point of medical science; to seek for better, more effective ways to prevent disease.
Progress is marked by the replacement of the old with the new and better. In the context of medical science, researchers usually seek to find ways to avoid surgery, not necessitate it; to preserve the body, not grope for a reason to deliberately destroy it. Circumcision "research" seems to be unique, in that it is the only instance in medical science where "scientists" and "researchers" aren't seeking to move forward, but to tenaciously cling to an ancient, cherished blood ritual.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the "science" behind the latest "study" were actually accurate. Perhaps circumcision MAY somehow "reduce" the risk of prostate cancer, though again, this "benefit" seems to somehow elude the United States, where 80% of American men are circumcised, and yet, according to the American Cancer Society, 1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer.
You wouldn't hear this from a circumcision advocate, but some studies show that masturbation might protect against prostate cancer. Additionally, lycopene in a man's diet may also ward off this deadly disease.
Finding better, more effective ways to prevent disease.
Replacing the old with the new and better.
Preserving, not deliberately destroying the human body
Making medical intervention obsolete.
THAT is what medical science is all about.
Great post. I'd take masturbation and tomatoes, too.ReplyDelete
A big YES to sexual freedom and pleasure, a plant based diet and NO to surgical amputation of erogenous body parts, especially when done to children.ReplyDelete
Its rather insane that in the year 2012 we are still having to fight off those with a punishing drive to damage sexuality, disguised as "research."
Not only will I take masturbation and tomatoes, but if I thought it would help I would even masturbate while eating tomatoes! What will those pro-circ nut jobs come up with next?ReplyDelete
Circumcision prevents the flu. Everyone needs to get circumcised, right now! (Have you noticed this is the conclusion to every circumcision "study?")ReplyDelete
I have heard of a study which claimed vasectomy greatly increased chances of prostate cancer.ReplyDelete
If a researcher was sincere about understanding (and reducing) prostate cancer they would compare men who got it with men who didn't.
You could control for age, and compare many aspects of genes, lifestyle, diet, sexual behaviour etc etc in detail and see how they groups were different. You would also need evidence for a plausible mechanism as to the causes.
To take only one aspect (i.e. circumcision) makes no sense unless you are trying to praise (or less likely denigrate) circumcision.
The statistics I saw were the countries with the highest rates of prostate cancer were the US, Canada and Australia (I forget the order) whose old men were mostly circed at birth. For this reason I am skeptical of any study claimimg circ reduces prostate cancer.