Bias: Difference between revisions

Line 185:

== "Anti-circumcision bias" ==

Advocates of [[circumcision]] may claim there is an "anti-circumcision bias" in research and in public health policy. They support their claim only with their judgment that substantial medical evidence favors their view.<ref>[[Edgar J. Schoen| ~~Schoen E]], [[~~Thomas E. Wiswell| ~~Wiswell T]],~~ Moses S. New policy on circumcision: Cause for concern~~. ''~~Pediatrics'' 2000; 105: 620-623.</ref> It is significant that circumcision advocates never offer any rationale or research to explain why someone would have an anti-circumcision bias and why, for example, some circumcised men, Jews, and doctors who performed routine circumcisions (and stopped) would adopt a position opposing circumcision that is not evidence-based.<ref>{{REFweb

Advocates of [[circumcision]] may claim there is an "anti-circumcision bias" in research and in public health policy. They support their claim only with their judgment that substantial medical evidence favors their view.<ref>{{REFjournal

|first=E.

|last=Schoen

|author-link=Edgar J. Schoen

|first2=T.

|last2=Wiswell

|author2-link=Thomas E. Wiswell

|last3=Moses

|first3=S.

|title=New policy on circumcision: Cause for concern

|trans-title=Neue Beschneidungspolitik: Anlass zur Sorge

|language=Englisch

|journal=Pediatrics

|date=2000

|volume=105

|pages=620-623

}}</ref> It is significant that circumcision advocates never offer any rationale or research to explain why someone would have an anti-circumcision bias and why, for example, some circumcised men, Jews, and doctors who performed routine circumcisions (and stopped) would adopt a position opposing circumcision that is not evidence-based.<ref>{{REFweb

|quote=Circumcision was more often supported by doctors who were circumcised.

|last=

@@ Line 185: / Line 185: @@
 == "Anti-circumcision bias" ==
-Advocates of [[circumcision]] may claim there is an "anti-circumcision bias" in research and in public health policy. They support their claim only with their judgment that substantial medical evidence favors their view.<ref>[[Edgar J. Schoen| Schoen E]], [[Thomas E. Wiswell| Wiswell T]], Moses S. New policy on circumcision: Cause for concern. ''Pediatrics'' 2000; 105: 620-623.</ref> It is significant that circumcision advocates never offer any rationale or research to explain why someone would have an anti-circumcision bias and why, for example, some circumcised men, Jews, and doctors who performed routine circumcisions (and stopped) would adopt a position opposing circumcision that is not evidence-based.<ref>{{REFweb
+Advocates of [[circumcision]] may claim there is an "anti-circumcision bias" in research and in public health policy. They support their claim only with their judgment that substantial medical evidence favors their view.<ref>{{REFjournal
+ |first=E.
+ |last=Schoen
+ |author-link=Edgar J. Schoen
+ |first2=T.
+ |last2=Wiswell
+ |author2-link=Thomas E. Wiswell
+ |last3=Moses
+ |first3=S.
+ |title=New policy on circumcision: Cause for concern
+ |trans-title=Neue Beschneidungspolitik: Anlass zur Sorge
+ |language=Englisch
+ |journal=Pediatrics
+ |date=2000
+ |volume=105
+ |pages=620-623
+}}</ref> It is significant that circumcision advocates never offer any rationale or research to explain why someone would have an anti-circumcision bias and why, for example, some circumcised men, Jews, and doctors who performed routine circumcisions (and stopped) would adopt a position opposing circumcision that is not evidence-based.<ref>{{REFweb
   |quote=Circumcision was more often supported by doctors who were circumcised.
   |last=