Circumcision study flaws: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Non-US statements: Add text. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Statements from medical trade associations: Add text. |
||
| Line 143: | Line 143: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
This statement has very serious omissions that bias it in favor of circumcision. The description of the [[foreskin]] omits important information, including its innervation, its protective functions, its immunological functions, and its sexual functions. The statement claims "potential" benefits, which exist only in someone's imagination. The statement | This statement has very serious omissions that bias it in favor of circumcision. The description of the [[foreskin]] omits important information, including its innervation, its protective functions, its immunological functions, and its sexual functions. The statement claims "potential" benefits, which exist only in someone's imagination. | ||
The CPS statement revives the claims made by circumcision promoter [[Thomas E. Wiswell]]'s discredited studies from the 1980s in an apparent attempt to restart the [[Urinary_tract_infection#The_UTI_scare| UTI scare]]. It fails to mention that UTIS are easily treated with antibiotics. | |||
It appears that the CPS is seeking to do more circumcisions so its members can make more money. | |||
* {{REFjournal | * {{REFjournal | ||
| Line 190: | Line 196: | ||
|quote= | |quote= | ||
}} | }} | ||
==US statements== | |||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||