[subego]

We can do World War IV and V about breast feeding.

[Shaddim]

WTF? Who doesn't enjoy breast feeding?

[Athens]

Breast Feeding

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

WTF? Who doesn't enjoy breast feeding?

Single fathers.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

WTF? Who doesn't enjoy breast feeding?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What science for or against. No one has shown anything for or against. Put up and show a paper of scientific merit against his claims then. Bringing up Burzynski here is also retarded. Your just being a inflammatory goof now.

I can post a link to that paper a THIRD time, but you'd just ignore it AGAIN.

[Athens]

You posted a paper on Burzynski?

[subego]

This paper had better be about wang.

[Shaddim]

Let's get back to breast feeding.

[Spheric Harlot]

Athens, I can't decide whether you're willfully trolling and being an asshole, or whether you really are so caught up in your soapboxing that you can't remember a word you've written.

You wrote:

Originally Posted by Athens 

What science for or against. No one has shown anything for or against. Put up and show a paper of scientific merit against his claims then. Bringing up Burzynski here is also retarded. Your just being a inflammatory goof now.

(This time, for your benefit, I've emphasized the salient part of your post, to which I responded:

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I can post a link to that paper a THIRD time, but you'd just ignore it AGAIN.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Athens 

You posted a paper on Burzynski?

So here it is, a THIRD time, as—well, not exactly requested, but apparently twice didn't work:

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Erogenous Tissue Loss after Circumcision
(warning: It's a scientific paper with some photographs—not of the procedure itself. NSFW)

Results

Skin and mucosa sufficient to cover the penile shaft was frequently missing from the circumcised penis. Missing tissue included a band of ridged mucosa located at the junction of true penile skin with smooth preputial mucosa. This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa.

Conclusion

The amount of tissue loss estimated in the present study is more than most parents envisage from pre-operative counselling. Circumcision also ablates junctional mucosa that appears to be an important component of the overall sensory mechanism of the human penis.

Doing that to a child is physical mutilation.

[kmkkid]

I personally find uncut disgusting.

I'm gay fwiw. And cut.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

I personally find uncut disgusting.

I'm gay fwiw. And cut.

I personally find gay people disgusting.

I'm uncut fwiw. And straight.
That was a lie - I've got nothing against flamboyants. But see how tolerance works both ways?

[kmkkid]

You're welcome to your opinion.

[brassplayersrock²]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Am I missing something? Did you fix my post or were you just agreeing with me?

I fixed the link. Check out where your link goes compared to the fixed one

[OAW]

^^^^^^

My EYES!!!!!!

OAW

[Cold Warrior]

A Lounge mod has moved this to PWL. It was that or either be locked in the Lounge.

[Athens]

Athens, I can't decide whether you're willfully trolling and being an asshole, or whether you really are so caught up in your soapboxing that you can't remember a word you've written.

Your missing a post.....

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Abandoning a study because the data was one sided is bad science. Guessing/hoping that scientific papers that agree with your point might exist instead of finding them is just lazy and foolish.

The fact you don't realise this along with your getting sucked in by the pseudoscience and the criminally bad published works of an obvious con man in the other thread means you have no credibility to comment on scientific papers or their validity.

Great comeback though.

Originally Posted by Athens
What science for or against. No one has shown anything for or against. Put up and show a paper of scientific merit against his claims then. Bringing up Burzynski here is also retarded. Your just being a inflammatory goof now.

(This time, for your benefit, I've emphasized the salient part of your post, to which I responded:

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
I can post a link to that paper a THIRD time, but you'd just ignore it AGAIN.

To which you replied:

Originally Posted by Athens
You posted a paper on Burzynski?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

A Lounge mod has moved this to PWL. It was that or either be locked in the Lounge.

I understand this course of action, but why wasn't asking the people who are misbehaving* to take it to the PWL an option?


*Defined here as getting all PWL in the non-PWL.

[Waragainstsleep]

This is the comment I was taking issue with:

Originally Posted by Athens 

I can't remember who it was that said the HIV study in Africa isn't valid because the evidence was so over whelming. That's retarded because if the evidence is that strong that early on and makes that big of a difference for Heterosexual men in a environment FULL of HIV of course a study will be cut short to fast track policy change.

[Athens]

Ok what was your issue with it? With out the sarcasm and other BS, just tell me what you had a problem with so I can try and address it in normal conversation fashion.

[lpkmckenna]

Uh, we'll never know "the evidence is overwhelming" because no study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's why it's not science.

[Athens]

Here is the CDC take on it

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

Biologic Plausibility

Compared with the dry external skin surface, the inner mucosa of the foreskin has less keratinization (deposition of fibrous protein), a higher density of target cells for HIV infection (Langerhans cells), and is more susceptible to HIV infection than other penile tissue in laboratory studies [2]. The foreskin may also have greater susceptibility to traumatic epithelial disruptions (tears) during intercourse, providing a portal of entry for pathogens, including HIV [3]. In addition, the microenvironment in the preputial sac between the unretracted foreskin and the glans penis may be conducive to viral survival [1]. Finally, the higher rates of sexually transmitted genital ulcerative disease, such as syphilis, observed in uncircumcised men may also increase susceptibility to HIV infection [4].

With numbers of 44% and 72% these are not small differences either

International Observational Studies

A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.

International Clinical Trials

Three randomized controlled clinical trials were conducted in Africa to determine whether circumcision of adult males will reduce their risk for HIV infection. The study conducted in South Africa [9] was stopped in 2005, and those in Kenya [10] and Uganda [11] were stopped in 2006 after interim analyses found a statistically significant reduction in male participants’ risk for HIV infection from medical circumcision.

I never even considered the effects of other infections, but according to the CDC it also has statistically significant reductions on others

Male Circumcision and Other Health Conditions

Lack of male circumcision has also been associated with sexually transmitted genital ulcer disease and chlamydia, infant urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men [1]. The latter two conditions are related to human papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Transmission of this virus is also associated with lack of male circumcision. A recent meta-analysis included 26 studies that assessed the association between male circumcision and risk for genital ulcer disease. The analysis concluded that there was a significantly lower risk for syphilis and chancroid among circumcised men, whereas the reduced risk of herpes simplex virus type 2 infection had a borderline statistical significance [4].

There is a lot more in the article of course I just took clips of some of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I just took clips

Tee hee.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Here is the CDC take on it

Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS



With numbers of 44% and 72% these are not small differences either.

It's a meta-analysis. So they pick and choose data.

It could mean that uncircumcised men enjoy sex more and have sex more often with more partners.

Hey, if gay men are sluts according to you, why can't uncircumcised men be sluts.

[hyteckit]

If your baby has a botched circumcision and loss his penis, make sure to hire this guy.

Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision �| ajc.com

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

It's a meta-analysis. So they pick and choose data.

It could mean that uncircumcised men enjoy sex more and have sex more often with more partners.

Hey, if gay men are sluts according to you, why can't uncircumcised men be sluts.

They can and probably would be if it was not for the woman side of the equation.

So my question is, what would it take to convince you that it is indeed accurate?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

They can and probably would be if it was not for the woman side of the equation.

So my question is, what would it take to convince you that it is indeed accurate?

How is it accurate? Over 30% of guys don't even know if they are circumcised or not. The article even admits that they cannot 'yet adequately assessed'.

From your link:

Although data on HIV infection rates since the beginning of the epidemic are available, data on circumcision and risk for HIV infection in the United States are limited.
....
....
It is important to note that reported circumcision status may be subject to misclassification. In a study of adolescents¸ only 69% of circumcised and 65% of uncircumcised young men correctly identified their circumcision status as verified by physical exam.
.....
....

It is possible, but not yet adequately assessed, that male circumcision could reduce male-to-female transmission of HIV, although probably to a lesser extent than female-to-male transmission.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

They can and probably would be if it was not for the woman side of the equation.

Absolutely true.

[ebuddy]

So... what now?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... what now?

I'm just glad no-one is posting pics.

[brassplayersrock²]

^ Someone didn't click on the links above

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

^ Someone didn't click on the links above

You're right I didn't. And I won't.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... what now?

Dinner and a movie?

[lpkmckenna]

Here's a bizarre circumcision story: journalist agrees to circumcision with bamboo sticks.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

Pertaining to the new baby thread. The question arose, and I'll make this anonymous as well.

Have at it!

It's cruel and unusual punishment, and completely unnecessary. Unless you want to maintain the covenant with Yahweh, and then it's OK.