Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Circumcision study flaws

606 bytes added, 11:43, 3 August 2020
USA: Add text.
The new policy was finally published in an unusual two-part article in the September 2012 issue of ''Pediatrics''. It immediately received an unrelenting and on-going storm of adverse critical comment:
 
* {{REFweb
|url=https://intactamerica.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/my-letter-to-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics/
|archived=
|title=My Letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics
|trans-title=
|language=English
|last=Chapin
|first=Georganne
|author-link=
|publisher=Intact America
|website=https://intactamerica.wordpress.com
|date=2012-08-31
|accessdate=2020-08-03
|format=
|quote=How can you approve a report that extols the benefits of removing the foreskin, a normal body part, without one single word devoted to the function of that body part, or why it’s there in the first place?
}}
* {{REFdocument
17,052
edits

Navigation menu