« First « Previous Comments 105 - 107 of 107 Search these comments
If there were no cultural baggage associated with this practice, there's no way you could get this procedure accepted.
I think it should not be covered as other insured have to pay for this. There may be exceptional situations were it could be covered, such as if a kid has a really large foreskin where it definitely would make sense, but that should become obvious later in life, not after birth. Some countries banned it, I think that may be taking it too far as it is vastly different from practices of mutilation of female genitalia, but each country/state should have the right to do so.
The development of Gardasil, and future advances in penile cancer prevention might once again bring the practice into question, but these are challenges for the future.
Gardasil and the role of HPV or herpes viruses are both very controversial, but in any case, as nasty as STDs or other illnesses of the genitalia are, they do not matter much in the grand scheme of things. The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all). Also preventing early infection with some viruses may even have a net negative effect such as reduced bacterial resistance or increased allergies.
The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all).
Isn't cervical and larynx cancer linked to HPV?
Though I agree with you that Gardasil is controversial. I believe it doesn't protect against some high risk/high frequency types of HPV?
The vast majority of chronical (and fatal) diseases of today are not much influenced by STDs or their respective viruses (if at all).
Isn't cervical and larynx cancer linked to HPV?
It is. Especially for women it could make sense to vaccinate, but there are many strains and some hpv strains protect against those that are assumed to play a a role in cervical cancer (via competition among strains) and it is hard to quantify any benefit vs risks. I guess now that many have been vaccinated we should see a drop in cervical cancer esp. due to these vaccinations decades from now, my guess is it will be hard to detect, esp. if matched against the success of preventative check-ups. If a woman does routine check-ups, pretty much all of those cases can be avoided as it is fairly easy to detect and fix. Throat and larynx cancer are linked as well, however I have never seen any details with numbers and how they compare against re usual suspects of big risk factors such as smoking etc. I would not vaccinate a daughter at this point, but leave her the choice. I'm not opposed to that vaccine or vaccines in general but that one needs more data, with regards to benefit and risks, just IMO.
« First « Previous Comments 105 - 107 of 107 Search these comments
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/malecircumcision/
Study after Study after Study shows Circumcised Males have 42%+ reduction in HIV infection versus the non-circumcised groups. For high-risk groups: Those who have multiple partners, have been treated for other STDs, etc. the reduction was ~70%.
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.
Furthermore, being circumcised almost completely eliminates the risk of Penile Cancer. Almost all cases of penile cancer in the USA are in uncircumcised males. Studies show that the chances getting and spreading other STDs, and it is now believed, HPV (a large factor in Ovarian Cancer) is also greatly retarded by circumcision.
Tell Rabbi Tuckman, lose the bacteria/virus breeding chamber skin flap.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20115905-10391704.html