Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcision study flaws

459 bytes added, 22:42, 29 July 2020
Add text.
{{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==
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}}
17,121
edits

Navigation menu