POLITICS THREAD

Last post on the subject for today, a few biological arguments now, that I have no doubt @buttersdaman000: will also be able to prove wrong.

Because, as he clearly stated that:

"Doctors also justified continued circumcision by claiming it was more sanitary. This narrative got a huge push after WW2, and as a result vastly increased circumcisions, because doctors noted that most soldiers with STD's were uncircumcised/non-jewish. So they arrived at the erroneous conclusion that circumcision deterred STD's."

Ahahahahahah.

I honestly think this is very close to my debate with people supporting Creationism, Flat Earth or that are against vaccine.

I just can't believe reading that in 2019, so yes, a last post, less clinical, more biological this time and after that @buttersdaman000: I will carefully read you answer and your counters to the clinical and biological arguments. Don't forget my promise to make you almost immediately worldwide famous. I mean it. All the field of infectious diseases needs you. We are all so wrong. We need to hurry up and stop these massive policies in Africa that are trying to protect entire populations but that are base on flawed studies. Hundred of millions of people are literally affect by our own blind misunderstanding of all these studies. Hurry up @buttersdaman000: save us. Save all these countries that need you. Please answer as soon as you can. Don't forget, with great power comes great responsibilities and you said that you had the proofs and all the arguments necessaries to convince the wold that (as you said): we all "arrived at the erroneous conclusion that circumcision deterred STD's."

Not including of course the billions dollars spent for nothing, all these full team of researchers that work for nothing. Who knows, maybe you, @buttersdaman000: yes you, all by yourself you will reveal to everybody that in fact this Circumcision thing is all part of a greater plan. Of a big conspiracy!

Or, if I stop being sarcastic for two seconds, you can just prove wrong the clinical trials above and the biological studies below.

AIDS Res Ther. 2017 Sep 12;14(1):49. doi: 10.1186/s12981-017-0167-6.

The biology of how circumcision reduces HIV susceptibility: broader implications for the prevention field.

Prodger JL1, Kaul R2.

Author information

1

Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.

2

Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, Room #6356, 1 King's College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A8, Canada. rupert.kaul@utoronto.ca.

Abstract

Circumcision reduces heterosexual HIV-1 acquisition in men by at least 60%. However, the biological mechanisms by which circumcision is protective remain incompletely understood. We test the hypothesis that the sub-preputial microenvironment created by the foreskin drives immune activation in adjacent foreskin tissues, facilitating HIV-1 infection through a combination of epithelial barrier disruption, enhanced dendritic cell maturation, and the recruitment/activation of neutrophils and susceptible CD4 T cell subsets such as Th17 cells. Furthermore, we provide evidence that the genital microbiome may be an important driver of this immune activation. This suggests that new modalities to reduce genital immune activation and/or alter the genital microbiome, used alone or in combination with topical microbicides, may be of significant benefit to HIV prevention.

KEYWORDS:

Chemokines; Circumcision; Foreskin; HIV-1; Microbiome; T-cells

PLoS Pathog. 2016 Nov 29;12(11):e1006025. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006025. eCollection 2016 Nov.

Chemokine Levels in the Penile Coronal Sulcus Correlate with HIV-1 Acquisition and Are Reduced by Male Circumcision in Rakai, Uganda.

Prodger JL1, Gray RH1,2, Shannon B3, Shahabi K3, Kong X1, Grabowski K1, Kigozi G2, Nalugoda F2, Serwadda D2, Wawer MJ1,2, Reynolds SJ2,4,5, Liu CM6,7, Tobian AA2,8, Kaul R3.

Author information

Abstract

Individual susceptibility to HIV is heterogeneous, but the biological mechanisms explaining differences are incompletely understood. We hypothesized that penile inflammation may increase HIV susceptibility in men by recruiting permissive CD4 T cells, and that male circumcision may decrease HIV susceptibility in part by reducing genital inflammation. We used multi-array technology to measure levels of seven cytokines in coronal sulcus (penile) swabs collected longitudinally from initially uncircumcised men enrolled in a randomized trial of circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. Coronal sulcus cytokine levels were compared between men who acquired HIV and controls who remained seronegative. Cytokines were also compared within men before and after circumcision, and correlated with CD4 T cells subsets in foreskin tissue. HIV acquisition was associated with detectable coronal sulcus Interleukin-8 (IL-8 aOR 2.26, 95%CI 1.04-6.40) and Monokine Induced by γ-interferon (MIG aOR 2.72, 95%CI 1.15-8.06) at the visit prior to seroconversion, and the odds of seroconversion increased with detection of multiple cytokines. Coronal sulcus chemokine levels were not correlated with those in the vagina of a man's female sex partner. The detection of IL-8 in swabs was significantly reduced 6 months after circumcision (PRR 0.59, 95%CI 0.44-0.87), and continued to decline for at least two years (PRR 0.29, 95%CI 0.16-0.54). Finally, prepuce IL-8 correlated with increased HIV target cell density in foreskin tissues, including highly susceptible CD4 T cells subsets, as well as with tissue neutrophil density. Together, these data suggest that penile inflammation increases HIV susceptibility and is reduced by circumcision.

Am J Pathol. 2010 Jun;176(6):2798-805. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2010.090926. Epub 2010 Apr 15.

Abundant expression of HIV target cells and C-type lectin receptors in the foreskin tissue of young Kenyan men.

Hirbod T1, Bailey RC, Agot K, Moses S, Ndinya-Achola J, Murugu R, Andersson J, Nilsson J, Broliden K.

Author information

Abstract

A biological explanation for the reduction in HIV-1 (HIV) acquisition after male circumcision may be that removal of the foreskin reduces the number of target cells for HIV. The expression of potential HIV target cells and C-type lectin receptors in foreskin tissue of men at risk of HIV infection were thus analyzed. Thirty-three foreskin tissue samples, stratified by Herpes simplex virus type 2 status, were obtained from a randomized, controlled trial conducted in Kenya. The samples were analyzed by confocal in situ imaging microscopy and mRNA quantification by quantitative RT-qPCR. The presence and location of T cells (CD3(+)CD4(+)), Langerhans cells(CD1a(+)Langerin/CD207(+)), macrophages (CD68(+) or CD14(+)), and submucosal dendritic cells (CD123(+)BDCA-2(+) or CD11c(+)DC-SIGN(+)) were defined. C-type lectin receptor expressing cells were detected in both the epithelium and submucosa, and distinct lymphoid aggregates densely populated with CD3(+)CD4(+) T cells were identified in the submucosa. Although the presence of lymphoid aggregates and mRNA expression of selected markers varied between study subjects, Herpes simplex virus type 2 serostatus was not the major determinant for the detected differences. The detection of abundant and superficially present potential HIV target cells and submucosal lymphoid aggregates in foreskin mucosa from a highly relevant HIV risk group demonstrate a possible anatomical explanation that may contribute to the protective effect of male circumcision on HIV transmission.

@bullpr: Not a question so I can debate but an honest one so I can avoid the walls of text. Can you as best you can in short laymans terms give me the how and why?

Sure:

I tried to divide my answer using bullets points.

Let me know if some (or all) of them are still too technical:

1) From the scientific studies I have posted

-Male circumcision by removal of the foreskin reduces the number of target cells for HIV (meaning: less point of entry for the invasion or transmission of the virus that targets only very specific cells, and these cells are very rich in the foreskin)

-Penile inflammation increases HIV susceptibility and is reduced by circumcision. This increased susceptibility to HIV during inflammation is caused by an increased presence of CD4 T cells (the niche for HIV infection).

-The sub-preputial microenvironment created by the foreskin drives immune activation in adjacent foreskin tissues, facilitating HIV-1 infection (In this case because of a combination of epithelial barrier disruption (meaning disruption of a physical barrier), enhanced dendritic cell maturation, and the recruitment/activation of neutrophils and susceptible CD4 T cell subsets such as Th17 cells (biological processes helping HIV infection)

2) from the American Scientist article I have posted:

*In uncircumcised men Langerhans cells—immune cells that are primary targets for HIV transmission—"are more richly concentrated near the surface of the foreskin,"says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md.

*Without the keratin barrier, HIV can easily access these cells in the foreskin.

*Following infection, Langerhans cells not only serve as reservoirs for replicating virus, but also transport the virus to nearby lymph nodes where HIV spreads to other immune cells.

-In fact, the foreskin's anatomical function actually amplifies the risks:

*In uncircumcised men the foreskin covers and protects the tip of the penis, paradoxically making the skin there more delicate and prone to microscopic abrasions.

*These tiny injuries promote inflammation, allowing the virus to come into closer contact with target immune cells.

*The moist environment that forms under the foreskin also enhances the growth of microbes on the penis's tip further stimulating immune responses near the skin's surface."

I hope It is at least a little bit comprehensible...

@bullpr: Thank you.

Change of direction a bit here. What do you think of the news of a second person getting cured of HIV? From what I'm hearing it still looks like an exception and people shouldn't be getting ahead of themselves.

It is a nice proof of concept for the pathophysiology of the HIV infection, but not at all a treatment for the disease.

Let me explain (and see this link for more information if you are interested: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00798-3).

-After infection by the HIV, you have an answer from your body (Host immune response). This response is efficient, and kills a lot of virus.

-Unfortunately, the virus can hide in your own white blood cells. Your defenses (and the drugs we can prescribe you) can not reach the virus in this reservoir.

Meaning, that without drugs you host immune response eventually gets overwhelmed and you die. With drugs: you can force the virus to stay in this reservoir (when it gets out, it gets killed). But you can not stop your treatment (you are in remission, not cured)

-So if you destroy your own white blood cells, all of them, you should be able to also destroy the infected cells.

-To be sure to be cured, after the destruction of your white blood cells, you replace them with new cells, more resistant to infection by the virus.

It worked with two patients, yes. One 10 years ago and one today.

Both patients had a blood cancer and needed the chemotherapy to treat the cancer.

This is the principle, yes. It clearly shows that if you destroy the reservoir of the virus you can be cured, not in remission.

Only problem: the mortality and the complication following the chemotherapy and the steam-cell transplantation are much much higher and dangerous than being in remission from an infection by the HIV and under control taking your pills everyday.

It would be like (and yes this is a sarcasm but you will get the idea) saying that by cutting your left leg you will get rid of your skin infection that bothers you on your big toe.

So overall, yes this is a big big news because it gives hope for the future. But not now.

I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but shitting on John McCain is something I can get behind.

Again, I don't want you to miss the big picture of what I am arguing. I get it. You fancy uncut dick. It's your preference. Its not mine, but I think you should have the freedom to pursue the dick you love. The difference is you want to legislate your preferences on me. You are using the argument "but the children should be protected" as a smokescreen for your real intention - controlling others. Circumcision has been practiced for at least 3,000 years with minimal negative physical consequences. More children die from adverse reactions to vaccines than from circumcision. Should the government ban vaccines too? If you were consistent in your reasoning you would say yes. More children will die from bee stings than circumcision, but I don't see you trying to ban bees.

Parents make decisions in behalf of their children that cause them pain all the time - whether it is getting a vaccine, pulling a tooth, piercing an ear, removing a splinter, spanking a child, etc. In all of these cases, I think that on average the parent is more likely to truly look out for the best interest of the child than a bureaucrat will. Will parents always make the choice that I think is best? No, but I think they will be more likely to do what is in their child's best interest than a government employee. So, embrace the dick that makes you happy, but keep your government out of my pants.

No, the difference is I think you must be of age to consent to such a procedure, especially with how it changes things

Define minimal

Death would be one "minimal negative physical consequence". Death rates from circumcision are so rare they are not tracked by the CDC, even though the CDC tracks the number of circumcisions each year in the US. That's a telling indication of the rarity of death by circumcision. I am not aware of any credible studies on the negative health consequences of circumcision. Most studies suggest a positive health benefit from circumcision. But even if there were no evidence of benefit - it just isn't a legitimate use of governmental power to regulate my dick.

#freethedicks

Dude, did I trigger you or something?? Why are you so worked up over slight misinformation concerning circumcision of all things??? One wrong word in my initial post and that sent you on a crusade to defend circumcision for some reason. All you had to do was say "hey, circumcision actually does deter STD's". It's really that simple. The debate on it is in no way similar to creationism/vaccines/flat earth, so you comparing me being slightly misinformed on the matter to someone who thinks the earth is flat is ridiculous. There's abundant research and proof against the latter two claims to the point where you have to be willingly blind or just dumb to believe in them. They're extremely mainstream, so the arguments are always in your face, giving you the chance to easily determine the truth. The same can't be said for circumcision. People are much more susceptible to conventional wisdom on the topic, either in support or against it, as I was. However, we know for a fact that circumcision does not prevent STD's so the debate centers around how much, if at all. On that, there are thousands of varying studies that suggests differences range from negligible to relatively moderate. The studies you linked yourself aren't even consistent in how much it helps. Then on top of that, the best way by far to prevent STD's regardless of the state of the penis is to use protection and be educated. That's why I linked that study that found that some of these studies aren't as accurate as they seem. So, you can defend circumcision all you want, but I still think it's an outdated, barbaric, and unneeded practice.

Person Number 1: So what do you do for a living.

Person Number 2: Oh I work for the government.

Person Number 1: Really? What do you do for them.

Person Number 2: I'm a dick regulator.

Richard Brewer the original would be proud.

You know these Lefties got me worried. With all this talk of dick regulating, coupled with all their talk about equality and redistribution - I'm afraid they will take from my surplus and give it to some wee willie out there.

#happytobeinthetop1percent

Well I may have misinterpreted your intent, but from my perspective, you started with a claim that was scientifically wrong, I answered with two ref from peer-reviewed journals. Then you maintained your claim, this time supported by a ref from a journal without impact factor and added by a weak rebuttal of my first references.

This is the classical round I am dancing on this site with creationists (see the thread about Evolution). I am dancing it since several years now, and your posts were VERY similar to my usual super-religious guys.

When confronted by a native English speaker trying to use pseudo-science to support a flawed argument, I found, with the time, that the best way to answer is too be very systematic in my answer. So I combined here randomized clinical trials, biological evidences and an article from a more general media to also use sentences without too many technical words.

I didn't want to go in a debate with you about who has the better English skills. I don't have any, I don't pretend to have any.

But I know what I'm talking about concerning Medicine and Biology.

Circumcision saves a lot a lives. Probably not in the USA but planet Earth is not just the United States of America.

You think it's "an outdated, barbaric, and unneeded practice." You are 100% wrong when looking at the big picture of Global Health in the world.

Now, this is a political thread, so I guess you say this because there is a political agenda behind that. Probably the Democrats want to stop it. Or the Republicans. Or the opposite.

I don't care. Like I really really don't care about it.

But I react when on a public forum with a lot of passage, I see someone with so many posts, around since so many years, i.e you, stating with so much conviction that studies from WW2 generated a false idea that male circumcision could help decrease part of the morbidity and mortality caused by infectious diseases sexually transmitted.

Read again my post 6540.

This could have stopped there. I thought it would stop there.

But then read again your answer: you know "all these studies", they "all have flaws".

Typical answer from a creationist when I post a Nature paper about Birds and Dinosaurs.

What's this about the media threatening Parliament members with bad media coverage if they don't vote for Article13?

According to Julia Reda who made the claim and Axel Voss who denied it. I think it was said here but am not sure. If anyone speaks this language to confirm or deny it......

https://www.facebook.com/dbouhs/videos/10156986351864360/

I maintained my claim because your two sources were faulty. I even linked my own claim that pointed out faulty research methods in circumcision vs uncut studies. You don't automatically "win" because you provided scientific studies. The whole point of science is to poke and prod at it to make sure it stands up to scrutiny, so you getting so offended that I would dare to argue is hilarious. This is in no way similar to someone making up wild theories to argue that the earth is flat. I read your studies, saw research methods that I found shaky, did my own research and found studies that supported my criticism of your links. That's how science works. If something as simple as that triggers you then that's your problem, and doesn't mean i'm trying to act as if I know more than professionals.

But I know what I'm talking about concerning Medicine and Biology.

Wait, you're a scientist and you get this riled up by people criticizing research???? Wow....dude, this isn't a scientific theory or anything like that. These studies are all subject to scrutiny. That's why the studies are still ongoing. That's why the findings still vary. That's why there's no set consensus on how much circumcision "helps". That's why I can criticize research that I find faulty. Did I criticize the other links? No, not nearly as much. I wonder why??

News flash! Circumcision arguments are in no way similar to creationism, or flat earth/vaccine conspiracy theorist. I feel like I have to keep reminding you this because you clearly have a problem with conflating them.

Another news flash! The argument was clearly centered around how circumcision affects Americans. You might be itching to prove people wrong, but make sure to respect the context first.

And another! If I was "100% wrong" then 100% of the evidence would support your claims. There are plenty of studies that say that better condom access and education are better at deterring STD's than cutting the penis.

https://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/pdf_22

https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

Yeah, but go on acting as if being a bit misinformed about the effectiveness of circumcision is on level with thinking vaccines cause autism.

But I react when on a public forum with a lot of passage, I see someone with so many posts, around since so many years, i.e you, stating with so much conviction that studies from WW2 generated a false idea that male circumcision could help decrease part of the morbidity and mortality caused by infectious diseases sexually transmitted.

Oh, makes sense. I've been here for a while....do you have some sort of vendetta against me or something?? Was I bit too rude in the past?? That would explain why you got triggered so quick, and your attitude in general. If so, then I apologize for it. Lol

Anyways, dude, it was one word. You could have corrected me on one word and this would've been resolved. Instead, you went on a crazy, crotchety tirade making circumcision misinformation seem as bad as thinking vaccines cause autism.

I think my previous post was quite clear. You clearly used methods that I found with creationists. Deny it as long as you want.

Bullet points:

-You knew all these studies

-You claimed that all of them were flawed

You wrote these two points to support a initial claim that male circumcision was not linked to a reduced risk of transmitting infectious diseases (and then you used a reference was from a journal without a real impact factor.). Saying that in 2019 is to show a formidable lack of general knowledge.

Now you are changing your argument and stating that: "There are plenty of studies that say that better condom access and education are better at deterring STD's than cutting the penis." I agree. This is a fact. Anybody who would deny that would be delusional. But this is NOT what your initial claim was.

Your follow-up post was to insist that you were right, denying in the process all the relevant literature. You could have answered to me what you wrote here: that male circumcision was not the best or only available approach. And I would have agreed.

I'm sorry, but I maintain that you didn't use a scientific approach in these posts. You used a pseudo-scientific methodology that I'm used to see in creationists and I reacted in consequence. As I said, I used a systemic approach to cover all the possible angles. This is the best way to deal with pseudo-scientists that have a political or a religious agenda.

So, in summary: you basically said that all the governments in the world that use male circumcision to help their population were wrong and that you were right. Confronted by overwhelming evidence you try to cover it. I don't even know why. Or who you try to convince. Your posts are here, everybody can read them.

So either move on, or try again to show me that you didn't say that

1) you knew all the studies about male circumcision and

2) sill claimed that it was not useful at all in decreasing the risk of transmitting infectious diseases (back to your colorful anecdote about WW2).

For me your position is more dangerous than flat Earth believers because nobody care about them, but if the like of you were successful, millions of people would be at greater risk of being infected and at greater risk to die. And think Africa for once. Not only USA.

Say you get the power to forbid male circumcision if these countries. How many people would die because of you?

I have no regret to have shown in this public forum scientific abstracts about randomized clinical trials, biological studies and others explaining how male circumcision could be useful.

You took it personally, of course, but the point here was to educate anybody who could read your initial post and may have thought you could be right.

And no, I never interacted with you before.

Oh, do creationists....idk...argue against your sources?? Seems like a pretty standard thing to do in debate.....do scientist use similar methods then?

Um no. You're being fallacious. Context matters. I was clearly referring to the first 2/3 you linked. I even noted for you in my last post that I didn't really attempt to refute the additional studies you linked because they stood up to a level of criticism the first ones didn't. The "impact factor" of my first link showed how faulty the research methods of your first studies were. It's pretty simple. You can't even properly respect context, so it makes sense you felt the need to go on a misguided crusade for science over a minor wording error. You just wanted to show how "smart" and "level-headed" you are. "Look guys I do research!!". Congrats!! It doesn't show!

And are you really arguing that circumcision health benefits are general knowledge?? Lmao

I didn't change my argument at all. I'll say it again, I didn't refute your other sources because they stood up to criticism better. I made a NEW point that circumcision doesn't prevent STD's and that the studies widely vary in effectiveness. I then went on to say, and you agreed with this, that education and protection were much better preventing STD's. And I also maintained my feelings against circumcision. Somehow, this triggered you, because you're apparently really, really into circumcision, and you took this to mean i'm anti-science. That's dumb as hell.

I'm sorry, but I maintain that you didn't use a scientific approach in these posts

I don't think you know what a scientific approach is. Posting studies you found on ncbi doesn't make you a scientist, nor does it mean you know how to apply scientific methods. It means you know how to use google. Congrats!!

But tell me, what was so "unscientific" about my approach?

1. I made a claim
2. You said that claim was wrong and posted 2/3 studies
3. I saw flaws in those studies so I researched (used google) to find sources to back up my criticism
4. I posted those sources, triggering you again
5. I read your new sources, conceded the point, then made a NEW point.
6. You got lost somewhere around here trying to act like the champion of science.

I think you need to spend more time on your comprehension skills instead of arguing against flat earthers and anti-vaccine people. They clearly have you riled up, seeing anti-science ghouls everywhere.

For me your position is more dangerous than flat Earth believers because nobody care about them, but if the like of you were successful, millions of people would be at greater risk of being infected and at greater risk to die. And think Africa for once. Not only USA.

Well that's just wrong. Flat Earth society has people second guessing scientific theories and logic itself. A little misinformation about circumcision isn't anywhere near that. And if I was successful, i'd advocate for better education and protection in Africa, USA, and everywhere else. So, your point is pretty redundant. Why mutilate people to lower the chances, when other methods are much better??

I have no regret to have shown in this public forum scientific abstracts about randomized clinical trials, biological studies and others explaining how male circumcision could be useful.

Cool, why would I care? They don't change my opinion, just my understanding.

You took it personally, of course, but the point here was to educate anybody who could read your initial post and may have thought you could be right.

And no, I never interacted with you before.

Nah, I didn't take it personally. But lets not pretend you didn't. There's no way you weren't feeling some type of way posting the way you did. You literally @'d me like 5-6 per post, sarcastically calling me out like this was some type of duel and doing that dumb little "ahahahaha" thing. You clearly took this whole thing personally.

"Trump signs executive order on campus free speech"

Just when you thought there couldn't be any more dicks in politics.

1) "Um no. You're being fallacious. Context matters. I was clearly referring to the first 2/3 you linked. "

Wrong. See your post 6546

I wrote

"you have thousands of medical studies demonstrating that male circumcision decreases STDs.

A recent paper below.

Literally thousands others published in the strongest medical and scientifc peer reviewed journals."

You answered:

"Yeah, I know of those studies. They're full of holes. And the ones that aren't usually say the difference is negligible."

This was a lie. You were not "clearly referring to 2/3 first studies". But to the thousands. Even I (and I am paid for it, see my job description post 6549) don't know all these thousands of studies. You claim that you knew all of them (impossible feat), and that they were all flawed (therefore there is a conspiracy I guess, from the editors to the peer-reviewers etc...)

Trying to convince anyone that your initial approach (creationist like) never happened and that instead you had a more scientific one is called another lie.

2)"Posting studies you found on ncbi doesn't make you a scientist, nor does it mean you know how to apply scientific methods. It means you know how to use google. Congrats!!"

No I don't use google. Sorry. For the rest of this comment, ahahahaha. You realized that it shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I have selected specific studies. From these specific journals. Probably with more experience you could also learn how to use the best material from a large data base. These clinical trials are the ones that convinced the decision makers that something had to be done that could save lives. The biological studies from these specific journals give a good state of the art of the scientific knowledge behind the empirical results from the randomized clinical trials.

In addition to my clinical and scientific appointments, I am also one of the associate editors (you can find my name easily, again, I don't hide, anonymous behind my screen) of one of these scientific journals. I clearly stated that my first abstracts were randomly selected among thousands. Not the next ones:

-I provided the most relevant for the clinical and daily application.

-But also the most pertinent scientific ones.

-And finally a more general text for non-scientific readers from a recognized source.

-Then I even summarized some of the current knowledge on this when asked by @dernman (see posts 6553-55).

To go from more than 10,000 available papers and being able to clearly present the more relevant ones, ranked and organized by area on interest (clinical/biological/non-scientific) and then provide a simplified/public summary of all these data is not a Google search. As I said. I don't use Google.

3) "There's no way you weren't feeling some type of way posting the way you did"

Of course I was unhappy. I'm used to see the non-sense similar to the one you posted in the religious thread and the one about evolution. Not among the "regular viners".

I was quite honest when I wrote (post 6540): "Come on guys, we are in 2019, and you have the general scientific and medical culture of people from the early 20th century. You are ridiculous. Read other stuff than comics!" However, the mistake I probably have to admit is this one: you just wrote: "And are you really arguing that circumcision health benefits are general knowledge?? Lmao"

Yep, I thought so, but in fact maybe not. Meaning that even papers from the NEJM and the Lancet don't have the full impact they could (should?) have.

(Edit here: seeing how you reacted to my previous post, I add here a preemptive note: my reference to my job description is not me trying to use an argument of authority to prove that I'm right, just to clarify that for these few posts my tone is different than my usual one in this forum of discussion, and that I won't let go a message that I consider as potentially harmful fly without reacting once I read it. I could have missed it, but I didn't)

@buttersdaman000:Just a quick follow-up, more technical.

Post 6565:

-"I maintained my claim because your two sources were faulty"

-"read your studies, saw research methods that I found shaky, did my own research and found studies that supported my criticism of your links."

Post 6546:

"they didn't really do any testing themselves, they simply reviewed data. They can extrapolate any conclusion they want from that data, because data only reflects how you interpret it."

This is the rational behind what in your perspective was a scientific rebuttal and that is exactly why I perceived you pseudo-science with a political agenda (like a fanatic religious could do it).

You approach was supported by a reference, published by J Law Med. A journal without real impact factor. Meaning papers published in the journal have not only no impact on the field, but the journal itself is not recognized by the scientific and/or medical community in general.

If you look then at the authors of this reference, and how to reach them:

"Gregory J Boyle, PhD (Delaware), PhD (Melbourne), DSc (Queensland), Independent Research Consultant, Queensland, Australia; and George Hill, Vice-President for Bioethics and Medical Science, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Seattle, Washington, United States of America"

Correspondence to: George Hill, Vice-President for Bioethics and Medical Science, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Suite 42, 2442 NW Market Street, Seattle, Washington 98107-4137, United States of America; http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org; email: iconbuster@bellsouth.net"

So you pick a article from a not recognized journal written by non-scientists physicians, without academic appointment and with a political agenda.

Doctor-Opposing-circumcision.org seems quite self explanatory.

So, from my perspective, you back your claim that you know all the scientific studies in this field, and that they are all flawed, with this journal and these authors. Clear approach used by the Christian scientists creationists that have their own journals, universities PhDs etc...

Again, you could say that

1) When stating that Male circumcision could not decrease at all the risk of ID transmission: no, in fact you didn't really say that, it was just a bad wording

2) When you wrote that you knew all about the thousands of published studies in the field and that they all had holes: No, you didn't mean that, it was a bad choice of words.

3) When you chose the ref above: No, it was not that serious, it was just a quick Google search, it just to support your point of view

Let's say I agree to all that. So I go back to your scientific review of my reference.

-A reference from The Lancet Global Health (the journal ranked number one in its field): but any journal can publish bad papers

-A study conducted by several major academic institutions from USA, Taiwan, China and Australia: Still bad data are bad data and you found significant flaws in their work

-You stated that:

"They didn't really do any testing themselves, they simply reviewed data. They can extrapolate any conclusion they want from that data, because data only reflects how you interpret it."

From everything that you wrote, this is probably what convinced me the most that you were using the same tactics as the creationists.

They deny everything about phylogenetic trees and DNA sequencing with the same approach.

They deny the field of bioinfromatics and others.

You deny the fields of Biostatistics, of epidemiology, and many others.

The title clearly stated that it was a meta-analysis. The rigor of these analyses is major. Simply throwing away decades of research and methodology by thousands of groups all over the world just because you don't understand it is clearly the position of the Creationists.

Please, let's go to your comment on this paper and its flaws. What part of the meta-analysis was biased?

What model in particular didn't take into account the eo-variables and confounding factors you have in your mind. What affect did it have on the P value, which P value and and the statistical power of the study?

The full paper is easily accessible online, so I guess it would be easy for you to get more into the details. Unless you just read the abstract. In that case, you are really really a super strong statistician, with a knowledge in clinical epidemiology absolutely off the charts

Bad Trump - Attacking John McCain. McCain's distribution of a dossier with slanderous now proven false allegations (many actually originated from a CNN site) was unethical and if someone had sought to damage McCain's reputation in such a way, you can bet he would have spoken out about it. But McCain has been dead for 7 months now. Its just stupid of Trump to keep bringing it up, over and over and over and over.

Good Trump - Recognizing that the Golan Heights are under Israel's control. That's just a recognition of reality. No doubt the anti-Semites in the Democrat party will have conniptions.

@bullpr:

I have never hidden my credentials, but just as a reminder, I'm a full professor in medicine, specialized in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases. I have a dual appointment at the university paris 5 and harvard medical school. Please, please write convincing arguments, supported with data from papers published in journals with impact factors above 5 and I will make sure all the medical and scientific community can read it and learn from it. From you in fact. We need you.

Oh, so you're a HARVARD professor who strokes his ego by arguing with creationist and anti-vaxxers on a comic book website. I'm sure those non-HARVARD Professors don't know shit compared to an actual HARVARD professor. Wow. I'm so sorry the level of research I dedicated to a comic book site debate didn't live up to the levels of a HARVARD professor. Im sorry I didn't take time to analyze the affects of the P-values and eo variables, and which scientific journals are best for this debate i'm having on COMICVINE.

This explains why you're so worked up over me not immediately bowing to your post though. The need to stroke your ego also explains why your failure to comprehend triggered you. I don't know thousands of "anything". I couldn't list thousands of words without having to look some up, and I talk everyday. But, for some reason you thought I was referring to a line or two in your poorly formatted post and not the attention grabbing, large, bolded studies instead. I triggered the common sense out of a HARVARD professor. Damn, my bad. And it seems that was where this all started, so refer to my other posts if you want my rebuttal. This is starting to get circular. I do hope, however, you don't teach your students to immediately accept research and studies without at least some level of scrutiny. I mean, there's no way you got to be a HARVARD professor without questioning things.

@buttersdaman000: I was so sure that you would react this way. I even tried to prevent it at the end of the post 6571

(copy and past: seeing how you reacted to my previous post, I add here a preemptive note: my reference to my job description is not me trying to use an argument of authority to prove that I'm right, just to clarify that for these few posts my tone is different than my usual one in this forum of discussion, and that I won't let go a message that I consider as potentially harmful fly without reacting once I read it. I could have missed it, but I didn't)

Obviously I failed.

You should learn from this instead of denying what you have done. I spent some time now trying to show you that you approach was bad.

I failed that too.

Initially I just posted information, data and references for the general readers that could have been convinced by your initial post or by the one with your reference written by Doctor-Opposing-circumcision.org. But a good portion of the last posts were clearly directed to you.

Get from our interaction whatever you want.

Damn how could you ever know I would react this way when you reminded me about your job, challenged me to conduct studies and prove how much I knew about doctorate level medical practices??? Wow. I'd expect nothing less from a HARVARD Professor. You're so smart.

Yes. You certainly did fail. I'd expect a HARVARD Professor to have better comprehension skills.

Again, with the comprehension. I already said that the additional studies you listed helped my understanding, just not my opinion. I'm sorry I don't like circumcision as much as you, HARVARD Professor.

It's clear what I got from our interaction. A better understanding on the benefits of circumcision, and proof that even a HARVARD Professor can lack skills that I as a lowly undergrad have.

Politics still looking good, get to discuss them with myself.

@buttersdaman000: It's not that I like circumcision, but I wanted to to show to the readers of this public forum of discussion the studies where it has been proven to have some significant efficacy. This will never replace protection and education. But in the real life you have to do with what you have.

In a previous post you said that if you were in charge and could forbid male circumcision no one would be in danger because you would use alternative approaches. In theory, ok, no problem. But today, in 2019, in African countries where the HIV epidemic is much more violent than in the western countries, where circumcision is well accepted by the population but (most of the time) not the Condoms and sexual education is just too far away from reality. So in these countries, in 2019, would you keep your position that it is "an outdated, barbaric, and unneeded practice." and forbid it?

@just_sayin: I'm baacckk... The Mueller report was just released ya'll

God to see you back. Kids can be busy.

Also, DoJ has said no more indictments. Meaning Trump is free!!!

@boschepg: I walk back into this post and now people are talking about circumcisions? I don't get where this post has gone, I've got a lot of catching up to do...lol

lol, I saw that and said WHAT!?!?!?

@black3stpanth3r: What's going on bro? What are your thoughts on Tulsi?? So far she's my top vote to replace tramp...so far anyway

No new indictments

Mueller witch-hunt is finally over

Happy no collusion day!

LOL... Trump must be shitting his pants right about now.

No additional indictments coming in after Mueller Report. What a surprise. People with Trump Derangement Syndrome are going to need additional counseling and therapy after this one.

BHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA NO PLEASE STOP BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA WHAT'S THAT? NO MORE INDICTMENTS? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Trump can't fall. if he falls, the last significative pro-Western conservative resistance will fall, if he falls everything is over, Le Pen, Salvini, Gauland, Weidel, Farage are not enough, everything depends on Trump, if he falls, conservativism will fall like a domino effect across western civilization, Globalism will accelerate and the imperialist socialist left will take over.

The U.S has the most predominant News-Media and I'm more than convinced that if the Far-left takes over, they will censor conservative media.

Politics just took a turn today.

@destinyman75: Hey man, I'm doing good, I haven't heard too much about Tulsi honestly, I guess I should look in to that. How are you doing bro?

@boschepg:

Let's wait and see the details of the report, Mueller was never going to indict a sitting President anyway, we've been saying that all along, Nixon was never indicted either, doesn't mean him or Tramp were blameless, there is still the SDNY and some 48 investigations going on.

@abstractraze: He was never Pro-west, he has and will always be Pro-Putin

@black3stpanth3r: Good bro..Yeah Personally I'm seeing her as on my top prospects. She's served in the military, knows the cost of war, and has a policy of were not the worlds police and she believes our regime changes like Syria, Venezuela etc don't work and cost much more etc. Wants to clean the environment as she is a environmentalist. Is on par with Bernie as far as healthcare goes. Don't believe in trickle down economics don't know much more then that but she's been owning the press that tries to smear her. She's all over YouTube...

Here is a link to a video done by someone I like Kim Iverson she does good work and looks at both sides..tons of this new Impressive president hopeful. Sub her she's good

https://youtu.be/A5ySQDfsxhA

@abstractraze: Your misinformation is astounding. Trump has been horrible. I agree conservative needs to be present but not by that non conservative psycho Trump

@destinyman75: Ok thanks for the info, she sounds like a real winner.

Oops.

@black3stpanth3r: here's another I think she can bridge the gap between the parties better then most

https://youtu.be/KKQLGO4ULC4

Is anyone else surprised that Tramp hasn't sent any tweets yet?