patrick.net

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Vaccines are also a fraud

Ack! Vaccines and fluoridated water are perhaps the best public health measures ever, and the only examples of preventive care that actually do save money. For the cost of one week of the Iraq War, or even one day of our current medical-industrial complex budget, we could have multiple vaccines against HIV and eradicate the disease totally, like what happened with smallpox. Or maybe Robber Baron's comment was meant to be sarcastic, since PhRMA make so much $$$ off drugs they aren't interested in vaccines.

thunderlips11 says

I assume that it's so rare, and years go by between incidents (despite millions being circumcised each year), that some years, like 2010, it doesn't even show up.

Well, at least one kid died in 2010 from circumcision:
http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/the-hatch-blog/articles/935637/pushing-your-parenting-agenda-how-far-is-too-far

I'm just happy to see someone advocating an alternative to condoms, because condoms suck bigtime.

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

zzyzzx says

Or just don't have sex with gay men.

So when all sexually transmitted diseases are eliminated by science, will you proclaim "have as much gay butt sex as you want!"?

It is disingenuous to link the morality of homosexual sex and practical matters like STD prevention, especially when condoms are completely effective in preventing the spread of these STDs.

If you want to argue that homosexual sex is immoral then open a new thread and start that thread by answering the following question. Why the fuck is gay sex immoral?

I have yet to hear any conservative give an answer to this other than that their racist, sexist, pro-slavery, pro-murder Christian religion says gay sex is immoral. But given that the Bible says slavery is moral, I say fuck the Bible, it's not a good source of morality.

leo707 says

mell says

If you live like a nun or a priest you can certainly cut your risk close to zero as well - HPV though (and some other "STDs") can also transmit via used towels or other skin on skin contact, though the risk is very low.

Hmmmm...is that the story you are sticking with? Did your significant-other buy it?

Yeah, but I also have been thoroughly tested which is something couples can demand from each other. That being said, there are tons of different HPV strains and a lot of viruses that each partner carries and can transmit that are not on the trend list these days since they have been around forever, which cause far more health issues in numbers than the common STDs combined. I am not saying that you shouldn't protect yourself (if you are promiscuous), but if you wanted to take care of your health in the most effective way STDs overall would not be a huge topic. Btw. you cannot test a guy for HPV as of today with any confidence. It's a very complicated topic, some clear them out every time, some don't and can transmit.

Bap33 says

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

I somewhat agree with this, I think states should be able to regulate abortion on the state level, and while I am against criminalizing it, I often wonder how one can not include unborn children in defending everyone's freedoms.

thunderlips11 says

Wow, if you knew that a two-minute, largely painless (but only on infants with less developed nerves) operation could reduce your child's chances getting HIV by nearly 50%, you'd be nuts not to do it.

I don't have kids so I haven't had the need to research this, but I do remember back in the 1990s there were a lot of people stating that male circumcision was as barbaric and harmful as female circumcision and that the only reason it was done was that it was a cultural norm.

The case the opposition made was that male circumcision causes extreme pain for the baby who often passes out as a result and causes a loss of sensitivity when sexual maturity is reached.

Penn and Teller had an episode on circumcision on Bullshit! Season 3 Episode 1 where they went into details about how bad it was.

Not being an expert on the subject myself, I'd be interested if there are experts on the matter that can say whether or not the babies actually do feel intense pain during the procedure and whether or not the other alleged effects are real. The episode of Bullshit says that babies are actually hypersensitive to pain, not less sensitive.

The article in this thread seems credible to me, so I'm willing to accept that the procedure does lower HIV transmission to men a bit, but I'd count on a condom way before counting on circumcision for that. If the other negative effects are legitimate, then I'd still be hesitant to have the procedure performed on any kid I had.

I'd like to see more unbiased facts about this subject from non-political and non-religious sources.

Bap33 says

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

No one wants to see a baby get it's head smashed. That's a disingenuous argument just like when the left try to argue that pro-lifers are just anti-women assholes who want to control women's bodies.

I really need to get out my thesis that answers the abortion question once and for all.

curious2 says

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Vaccines are also a fraud

Ack! Vaccines and fluoridated water are perhaps the best public health measures ever, and the only examples of preventive care that actually do save money. For the cost of one week of the Iraq War, or even one day of our current medical-industrial complex budget, we could have multiple vaccines against HIV and eradicate the disease totally, like what happened with smallpox. Or maybe Robber Baron's comment was meant to be sarcastic, since PhRMA make so much $$$ off drugs they aren't interested in vaccines.

Another thing to disagree on ;) I completely disagree on fluoridated water which is again mostly a US-phenomenon (and a few other countries) as most other countries weighed in and found more risks that benefits, on the Vaccines I partially agree since there a useful and more or less useless/dangerous vaccines. Debating those would be a different topic.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

liberals are an odd sort ... they demand the law allow to have a baby get it's head smashed, brains sucked out, and torn limb from limb when the completed birth is not wanted by the woman, BUT, they don't want to see the male kid's peter trimmed should it somehow not be aborted. A really odd sort indeed.

No one wants to see a baby get it's head smashed. That's a disingenuous argument just like when the left try to argue that pro-lifers are just anti-women assholes who want to control women's bodies.

I really need to get out my thesis that answers the abortion question once and for all.

we can keep it on simple terms.
At [TIME FRAME "X"] before birth the left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd has no problem with dick flaps getting tossed away with the destroyed baby. But, at [TIME FRAME "X"] after birth, the same crowd has all these deep reasons to save the dick flaps (and the baby) from any and all harm. How's that? No religion mentioned. No existentialism. No Jedi mind tricks. It is due to these types of things that I say liberalism is a mental disorder. One that I think is fostered and increased by drug abuse and/or sexually immoral activity.

Bap33 says

we can keep it on simple terms.

Just so you know. They are people out there who disagree with both mutilation of genitals and abortion.

You need to stop supporting mutilation of genitals by trying to discredit those don't support it through a generalization taken out of your ass.

And by the way, I hate liberals as well. But trying to assume that genital mutiliation opposers are all liberals is a insult to your intelligence.

Bap33 says

we can keep it on simple terms.
At [TIME FRAME "X"] before birth the left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd has no problem with dick flaps getting tossed away with the destroyed baby. But, at [TIME FRAME "X"] after birth, the same crowd has all these deep reasons to save the dick flaps (and the baby) from any and all harm. How's that? No religion mentioned. No existentialism. No Jedi mind tricks. It is due to these types of things that I say liberalism is a mental disorder. One that I think is fostered and increased by drug abuse and/or sexually immoral activity.

You don't really believe that, do you? And how the hell do you define a sodomite?

The mass murder of jews during the Holocaust by Adolf Hitler... Was also the mass murder of child sexual abusers and mutilators.

Adolf Hitler was a hero. Fuck the "victims" of the holocaust... They are child abusing sympathy-seeking bastards.

DIE DIE DIE....

curious2 says

Vaccines and fluoridated water are perhaps the best public health measures ever,

Google "Flouride Harmful"

Google "Vacccine Harmful"

Hitler polluted the drinking water of the nazi prisoners with flouride to make them into docile cockroach serfs and peasants.

Flouride is a neuro-toxin and lowers IQ. Extremely nasty harmful stuff.

Vaccines contain many harmful toxins. One of it being mercury. Flu shots are also dangerous.

Robber Baron, you are becoming an old softie. If you wanted everybody to die painful deaths for your pleasure, wouldn't you WANT them to drink flouride and be vaccinated?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/RWoJanKCVDw

This entire orginal thread post is propgating more than 1 myth and has no factual value whatsoever.

Ceffer says

Robber Baron, you are becoming an old softie. If you wanted everybody to die painful deaths for your pleasure, wouldn't you WANT them to drink flouride and be vaccinated?

The more you tell sheep not do to something. The more they do it.

When you warn people and tell them the truth, 99.99% turn a blind eye.

I have no fear of you fucking peons... I can always hire a firing squad if you worthless cockroaches get out of line.

Everybody knows that Mcdonald's will kill you... But why are cockroaches still eating that pesticide?

Why is Mcdonald's still a billion dollar business? Because the sheep want to be killed.

The peasants and serfs may vehemently deny that they hate to be slaughtered by white collar criminal financial scumfucks...

But their actions prove to say that they want to DIE.

That's one reason why I have no problem spilling the truth and beans.

But another good reason... Is I love and get just as much pleasure out of killing you than I get out of making cockroaches feel like the dumb fucking worthless idiots that they are...

You are serfs and peasants. It's my job to show you.

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Google "Flouride Harmful"

Google "Vacccine Harmful"

Wow you managed to misspell both fluoride and vaccine! Way to enhance your credibility, Robber!

Anyway I am aware of the controversies, but just to clear up a point of fact, mercury is no longer used in making vaccines. There were never any proven injuries from it, but due to the controversy it was discontinued. Every medical procedure involves risks, but vaccines carry comparatively low risk and high reward. If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice, but you still benefit if other people get vaccinated, and I'm happy to volunteer.

Robber Baron Elite Scum says

Hitler polluted the drinking water of the nazi prisoners with flouride to make them into docile cockroach serfs and peasants.

Flouride is a neuro-toxin and lowers IQ. Extremely nasty harmful stuff.

Well that must explain my low IQ, I've been drinking tap water all of my life.

leo707 says

Well, at least one kid died in 2010 from circumcision:
http://www.pregnancyandbaby.com/the-hatch-blog/articles/935637/pushing-your-parenting-agenda-how-far-is-too-far

A cardiac arrest after a circumcision?

And here is the underlying cause, actually from an anti-circ site:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Baby Joshua was born with major congenitive heart problems. If it hadn't been the circumcision, it could have been a vaccination.

Dan8267 says

Penn and Teller had an episode on circumcision on Bullshit! Season 3 Episode 1 where they went into details about how bad it was.

Since that season there's been a ton of randomized studies showing the HIV/HPV prevention powers of circumcision. Also, even the Euros now admit it reduces UTIs by to a fraction of what it is in the "uncirced".

Dan8267 says

The case the opposition made was that male circumcision causes extreme pain for the baby who often passes out as a result and causes a loss of sensitivity when sexual maturity is reached.

I could believe it. The APA and other groups recommend topical anaethesia, which often isn't done in "Community" Circumcisions. But it's still believed that adults experience far more pain than babies during the process.

Watch out it's the grammar and spelling police!

I already knew before I posted that I switch the u and o... Out of order in fluoride and put a extra c in vaccine. I spelled vaccine correctly though in that post the second time.

It's called a keyboard typo and a miss-hit on a god damn button.

Do not drink public water even if it contains no fluoride. It still contains chlorine & all kinds of chemical & pharmaceutical waste. Public water is from the sewer.

You degenerate cockroaches are drinking your own waste!

Bap33 says

left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd

WTF does sodomy have to do with abortion? Bap, you can't get pregnant from butt sex.

Bap33 says

At [TIME FRAME "X"] before birth the left/liberal/sodomite/pro-abortion crowd has no problem with dick flaps getting tossed away with the destroyed baby. But, at [TIME FRAME "X"] after birth, the same crowd has all these deep reasons to save the dick flaps (and the baby) from any and all harm. How's that?

This is you two months after birth.

This is you nine months before birth

Can you see the difference? Yes, the very atoms that made up you developing body were in fact part of a hamburger your mom ate. Those atoms did not constitute a person until they were assembled into -- you know what, I'm going make you wait for the answer because I want to do this proper. Otherwise, it would just go over your head.

For now, know that it is not the timeframe before birth that matters but rather the timeframe, and what happens during that timeframe, after conception that matters.

I'll make time this weekend to answer the whole abortion issue once and for all. Well, there goes my weekend. And I was really hoping to catch up on the Vampire Diaries.

thunderlips11 says

Since that season there's been a ton of randomized studies showing the HIV/HPV prevention powers of circumcision

So it seems. I think we can accept that circumcision has a moderate effect on lowering transmission rates of HIV to men. However, the procedure is certainly an invasive one, so I don't think we can justify it on the basis of lowering HIV transmissions when wearing a condom is far, far less evasive and less permanent and far, far more effective in the prevention of AIDS. This is especially true since the babies don't have the ability to decide or consent to the medical procedure.

The episode of Bullshit was inconclusive on the HIV prevention but did make the case that condoms are really the solution to AIDS prevention anyway. In that episode, Penn also showed numerous other negative effects of circumcision. I don't know whether or not these effects are real as claimed in the episode, but Penn did make a convincing case.

Whenever it comes to having a medical procedure performed, the burden of proof is on those advocating that procedure. The advocates must show that the advantages outweigh the risks and disadvantages. As the only known advantage is a highly unreliable way of preventing HIV transmission, I cannot yet conclude that circumcision is a good idea. The removal of body parts is certainly an invasive enough medical procedure to warrant far better cause.

Dan8267 says

The removal of body parts is certainly an invasive enough medical procedure to warrant far better cause.

brains and limbs are body parts, and are cells, and are atoms, and are matter. Right?

My mention of the Sodomite Nation is only because they came out against flap removal, that was mentioned early on. No need to hinge so much upon that portion of this discussion. Deviant male's mounting other males and using them as one uses a whore is not part of this discussion.

Liberal/progressive/intrustive/controlling/nanny-stater/leftist ... these are interchangable in my vocabulary on this subject. Feel free to lable the anti-circ army with any name you enjoy. Sorry for any confusion.

Bap33 says

Deviant male's mounting other males and using them as one uses a whore is not part of this discussion.

Are you as uptight about heterosexual sex as you are about homosexual sex? In either case, this isn't the thread to discuss that in. So, I'll open another.

Bap33 says

Feel free to lable the anti-circ army with any name you enjoy. Sorry for any confusion.

Not sure if he meant label or liable. Doesn't make sense either way.

I'm open to either the pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision camp, but I need hard core evidence to decide, and the default position is anti-circumcision as one doesn't perform medical procedures unless there is a good reason to do so.

Dan8267 says

I'm open to either the pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision camp, but I need hard core evidence to decide, and the default position is anti-circumcision as one doesn't perform medical procedures unless there is a good reason to do so.

I respect that position. My beef is not with those who do not want it to be routine, although I feel it should be, but with those with an emotional reaction against it, even in cases where the patient's history (say, multiple UTI events in infancy) recommends it.

label -- don't be a butt munch.

the cutting of the cord ... and an epesiotomy(sp) ... are both surgical procedures, aint they?

I am pro-trim. Two reasons. Hygene and Health. I shared a hospital room with an old old man while I was recovering from knee surgery when I was a teenager. THe dude was near 80. He was there to have his flap removed due to complications from the flap getting less flexible and getting infected. So, this dude went through the trimming as an adult, and I got the joy of sharing his experience. Only the freakiest of freaks would think it makes sense for a grown male to get trimmed, when trimming a new born is much less trouble and avoids a major hardship later in life.

Personal experience, and reaction from females, suggests that trimmed is the way to go.

thunderlips11 says

I respect that position

More important than the conclusion is the line of thought that leads to it. I think we're using the same line of thought.

The question of whether or not circumcisions should be performed, and if so how they should be performed, should be determined by objective, verifiable medical evidence that the procedure is overall beneficial.

The origins of circumcision are religious as shown in Bullshit. First it was a sacrifice to an imaginary god. Then it was an ineffective means of trying to prevent masturbation. Finally arguments were made for the sake of hygiene and health.

It's quite possible that the arguments regarding hygiene and health are valid, but it's a heck of a coincidence that something that started as an arbitrary religious ceremony and then became part of an anti-masturbation crusade just happens to be also good medical practice. Hence my skepticism.

Of course a skeptic is willing to be convinced. That's what separates skepticism from denial, a trademark of religion and politics. My main concern is that the procedure is still being done simply because it's another way for hospitals to bring in cash, and clearly that's not a good reason to perform a medical procedure.

I'd like to see a reputable organization like the World Heath Organization publish an in-depth study on the positive and negative effects of circumcision as well as the anesthetic needs and risks for babies receiving this procedure. Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure. Personally, I don't see why it would be difficult for the WHO to perform such a definitive study. Seems like it should be easy to do compared to many of the other things they do.

Dan8267 says

Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure

abortion stops a beating heart. you have now been informed.

Melmakian says

So says the God-hater who can't prove that God doesn't exist but wants everyone to believe in Global Warming despite it hasn't been proven to exist either.

Do I have to open a thread on that too?

Bap33 says

abortion stops a beating heart. you have now been informed.

So if the abortion happens before the heart is formed, you are okay with it then?

How the Morning After Pill Works

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

Bap33 says

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world. Are you against sperm going to waste by not being used to impregnate everything in sight?

Dan8267 says

More important than the conclusion is the line of thought that leads to it. I think we're using the same line of thought.

Word. I see your and Leo's point, in my father's day, tonsil removal was routine for most children; today the consensus is the drawbacks negate the benefits and that tonsils should only be removed when there are problems. I imagine the circumcision debate will go through the same process as the science develops and the consensus changes either way in reaction to new research.

Dan8267 says

I'd like to see a reputable organization like the World Heath Organization publish an in-depth study on the positive and negative effects of circumcision as well as the anesthetic needs and risks for babies receiving this procedure. Only when one is armed with accurate information, can one make a good decision about this procedure. Personally, I don't see why it would be difficult for the WHO to perform such a definitive study. Seems like it should be easy to do compared to many of the other things they do.

Lots of stuff from WHO:

http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/fact_sheet/en/

Medical male circumcision reduces the risk of female-to-male sexual transmission of HIV by approximately 60%.
Since 2007, WHO and UNAIDS have recommended voluntary medical male circumcision as an additional important strategy for HIV prevention, particularly in settings with high HIV prevalence and low levels of male circumcision, where the public health benefits will be maximized. Fourteen countries in eastern and southern Africa with this profile have initiated programmes to expand male circumcision.
Medical male circumcision offers excellent value for money in such settings. It saves costs by averting new HIV infections and reducing the number of people needing HIV treatment and care.
A one-time intervention, medical male circumcision provides men life-long partial protection against HIV as well as other sexually transmitted infections. It should always be considered as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package of services and be used in conjunction with other methods of prevention, such as female and male condoms.

Here's some WHO documents from their website which comprehensively lay out their position, including the most recent, most comprehensive studies on circumcision and HIV. :
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/research_implications/en/index.html

An age old religious routine might have hit on something by accident. Just like some of the herbs used in medieval times actually did something like what they were claimed, and allowed us to synthesize the chemicals within into better and powerful medicine. Most of herb-use was quackery, but a fraction of it was legit.

One of the explanations for circumcision is that when you live the the desert, sand gets trapped into your foreskin, and scratches everything to all hell, causing cuts and infections. It may have been later subject to mythological explanation after the original purpose was forgotten. So instead of "We semites remove our foreskins so as not to have sand up our wang" it became "The King of the Mountain told us we're his people who should mark ourselves by removing this skin flap."

On the summary page, it goes on to talk about the randomized control studies done by the US NIH and a French Organization, which are the sources for the 53-60% number (it varies).

This is why I compare circumcision to Gardasil (HPV Vaccine) - Gardasil does not prevent all or even almost all of the HPV varieties linked to cervical cancer, but is recommended anyway.

This campaign to circumcise by WHO/UNICEF/UNAIDS and other NGOs acting in concert has their own site dedicated to male circumcision:
http://www.malecircumcision.org/about/male_circumcision_about_us.html

The first link of the Tools and Programmes links to the use of Local Anaesthetics when performing circumcision:
http://www.malecircumcision.org/programs/tools_guidelines.html

There are also papers about which devices are best used, how to train personnel, funding for it, etc.

Dan8267 says

Bap33 says

I am never ok with the destruction of an innocent human baby. They possess all of the potential to cure cancer or bring peace to all man.

The same can be said about every sperm cell in the world. Are you against sperm going to waste by not being used to impregnate everything in sight?

nope, in natural conditions a sperm cell dies if it does not find a female egg. A female egg dies in natural conditions if a sperm does not breach the cell wall. Once those two individual cells join, they become a whole new cell with matched DNA .... and that cell splits and splits and splits and continues on for 80 years or so with the exact same DNA it started with. Start from the 80 year old guy, no wait, start from your age and use you for the example, going backwards in your life time, tell me when you stop being the cell cluster that we all call Dan. Thanks.

thunderlips11 says

Lots of stuff from WHO:

Good find. The WHO I trust. They don't have religious or cultural agendas and have to work across many cultures. As such, they really have to be culture neutral and stick to the facts. They also have accomplished a lot in protecting the world from disease.

Plus they rock epically.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/BfuWXRZe9yA

Bap33 says

nope, in natural conditions a sperm cell dies if it does not find a female egg. A female egg dies in natural conditions if a sperm does not breach the cell wall.

Still don't get the concept of natural selection, do ya?

Bap33 says

, tell me when you stop being the cell cluster that we all call Dan.

Finally, you get close to the issue. It's rare moments like this that I have hope for you.

I'll address this very issue and many others when I write my weekend rant. Can't get enough free time during the week to do it.