Difference between revisions of "Circumcision study flaws"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Add sections and text.)
(Add text.)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Construction Site}}
 
{{Construction Site}}
 +
The '''Circumcision study flaws''' are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is impacted by religious and cultural views of many authors. Moreover the circumcision status of the author impacts his views.<ref name="hill2007">{{REFjournal
 +
|last=Hill
 +
|first=G.
 +
|author-link=George Hill
 +
|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.738.3612&rep=rep1&type=pd
 +
|title=The case against circumcision
 +
|journal=J Mens Health Gend
 +
|date=2007-08-20
 +
|volume=4
 +
|issue=3
 +
|pages=318-323
 +
}}</ref>
  
This article will focus on the fundamental flaws of all or most [[circumcision]] research.
 
  
 
==Polarity==
 
==Polarity==
  
The medical literature regarding male circumcision is  highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.
+
The medical literature regarding male circumcision is  highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.<ref name="hill2007" />
  
 
{{REF}}
 
{{REF}}

Revision as of 23:42, 29 July 2020

Construction Site

This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.

 

The Circumcision study flaws are numerous. The medical literature relating to circumcision is impacted by religious and cultural views of many authors. Moreover the circumcision status of the author impacts his views.[1]


Polarity

The medical literature regarding male circumcision is highly polarized. Foreskinned doctors tend to write papers hostile to circumcision, while circumcised doctors tend to write papers in favor of circumcision.[1]

References

  1. a b REFjournal Hill, G.. The case against circumcision. J Mens Health Gend. 20 August 2007; 4(3): 318-323.