Difference between revisions of "Circumcision study flaws"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add sections and text.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This article will focus on the fundamental flaws of all or most [[circumcision]] research. | This article will focus on the fundamental flaws of all or most [[circumcision]] research. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{REF}} | ||
[[Category:From Intactipedia]] | [[Category:From Intactipedia]] | ||
[[Category:From IntactWiki]] | [[Category:From IntactWiki]] | ||
Revision as of 00:12, 19 July 2020
Construction Site
This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.
This article will focus on the fundamental flaws of all or most circumcision research.
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.
References