Circumcision Linked to Autism in New Danish Study

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
It's possible that this study was backed by those involved in or sympathetic to the pro-vaccine movement. It's no secret that "conspiracy theories" suggesting that autism might be linked with immunisations have been gaining traction as of late.

"It's no secret that "conspiracy theories" suggesting that autism might be linked with immunisations have been gaining traction as of late."
Only amongst those who already believe it i.e. the anti-vax, anti-science cult members.
They haven't with people who understand science.
And I don't follow your logic that this study is somehow "for" the pro-vax (normal) people.
If anything, it's anti-circ, it's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with vaccinations.

Yours is a very illogical and quite bizarre comment.
But then, an anti-vaxxer's logic isn't their strong point.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
How about we just stop mutilating babies?... Why do we need a reason to stop doing that? It is a disgusting practice.

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

What are the risks of circumcision?
Like any surgical procedure, there are risks associated with circumcision. However, this risk is low. Problems associated with circumcision include:

Pain
Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
Irritation of the glans
Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
Risk of injury to the penis

If it was not religious, I would 100% get my child circumcised. Most serious complications are avoided if done in a medical setting, and the benefits are pretty substantial, especially when that child becomes elderly.

Good hygiene and wearing condoms also provides the same benefits as circumcision and are far less invasive and traumatic.

There are also these risks.
A decrease in sensation in the penis, particularly during sex;
Damage to the tube that carries urine inside the penis (urethra), causing it to narrow and making it hard to pass urine;
Removal of too much of the foreskin;
Accidental amputation of the head of the penis, which is very rare;
A blood infection or blood poisoning (septicaemia).
The risks outweigh the benefits I'm afraid.

Like any medical procedure this should only be performed if necessary, not prophylactically.
Personally I see it as barbaric, outdated and unnecessary in the majority of cases.

a reply to: Pardon?

Almost all the risks are likely to come from a non medical professional.

Wearing a condom is great if you plan on never having children, and do not offer protection against cancer. Hygiene poses a daunting task for the elderly who are prone to debilitating UTI's, and before you speak I work in a hospital with the elderly and it's a very real risk.

originally posted by: Pardon?
Only amongst those who already believe it i.e. the anti-vax, anti-science cult members.
They haven't with people who understand science.

People that are anti-vaccine are not necessarily anti-science. Are you implying that - with 100% certainty - there are no negative side-effects associated with taking vaccines?

And I don't follow your logic that this study is somehow "for" the pro-vax (normal) people.
If anything, it's anti-circ, it's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with vaccinations.

You obviously are not much of a conspiracy researcher. Whether you like to admit it or not, more people are questioning whether vaccines are safe and beneficial. As more stories have surfaced about negative reactions to vaccines, the companies that benefit from their use have gone through great lengths to discredit and ridicule any suggestions that vaccines might be responsible.

Autism in particular has come up as a possible side-effect of vaccines. What better way to discredit any claims of linking Autism with vaccines than backing a study that makes outrageous claims (circumcision can lead to autism) about the condition (autism) that has become a hot topic of debate.

In the end, when people such as yourself hear about others questioning whether there is a correlation between autism and vaccines, you can just say pejoratively, "don't you know: circumcision causes autism too!" and any attempt to take the topic seriously has been squashed.

Yours is a very illogical and quite bizarre comment.
But then, an anti-vaxxer's logic isn't their strong point.

The onus is on you to now demonstrate how my comment was illogical. Good luck with that.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Pardon?
Only amongst those who already believe it i.e. the anti-vax, anti-science cult members.
They haven't with people who understand science.

People that are anti-vaccine are not necessarily anti-science. Are you implying that - with 100% certainty - there are no negative side-effects associated with taking vaccines?

This is a strawman argument. No one is implying that vaccines can have no side effects. EVERY substance (natural or otherwise) that has a biological effect on humans can have side effects.

You obviously are not much of a conspiracy researcher. Whether you like to admit it or not, more people are questioning whether vaccines are safe and beneficial. As more stories have surfaced about negative reactions to vaccines, the companies that benefit from their use have gone through great lengths to discredit and ridicule any suggestions that vaccines might be responsible.

Autism in particular has come up as a possible side-effect of vaccines. What better way to discredit any claims of linking Autism with vaccines than backing a study that makes outrageous claims (circumcision can lead to autism) about the condition (autism) that has become a hot topic of debate.

And your "conspiratorial research" evidently doesn't stretch to scientific evidence and clinical studies. There have been a multitude of robust, independent studies that all show no causal link between vaccines and autism. It's flogging a dead horse by this point. Sadly, the anti-vaxers persist in clinging to long debunked, pseudo-scientific beliefs.

There have been studies involving MILLIONS of children that conclusively demonstrate no link between vaccines and autism. You will really have to do some mind-bending balance of cognitive dissonance to still cling to this fantasy of yours:

www.nejm.org...
www.sciencedirect.com...

In the end, when people such as yourself hear about others questioning whether there is a correlation between autism and vaccines, you can just say pejoratively, "don't you know: circumcision causes autism too!" and any attempt to take the topic seriously has been squashed.

Try taking the topic "seriously" by actually studying the overwhelming wealth of scientific studies that say otherwise, not just reading anti-vaccination blogs because they align with your word view. The great thing about science-based medicine is that it doesn't require belief, the data speaks for itself.

The onus is on you to now demonstrate how my comment was illogical. Good luck with that.

The onus on you is to provide a wealth of scientific evidence equal to or greater than the staggering amount of evidence that debunks the vaccine/autism link. Fantastic claims requiring fantastic evidence and all that. The fact that you cling to long debunked beliefs demonstrates that your reasoning is not motivated by logic and evidence but "dem feels" and motivated reasoning.

originally posted by: GetHyped
This is a strawman argument. No one is implying that vaccines can have no side effects. EVERY substance (natural or otherwise) that has a biological effect on humans can have side effects.

It's not a straw-man argument, I was asking a question to another member.

And your "conspiratorial research" evidently doesn't stretch to scientific evidence and clinical studies. There have been a multitude of robust, independent studies that all show no causal link between vaccines and autism. It's flogging a dead horse by this point. Sadly, the anti-vaxers persist in clinging to long debunked, pseudo-scientific beliefs.

Who said anything about a causal link? THAT is an example of a straw-man. If you want to stretch things, I have implied there might be a correlative link between autism and vaccines. I never said or implied anything more.

There have been studies involving MILLIONS of children that conclusively demonstrate no link between vaccines and autism. You will really have to do some mind-bending balance of cognitive dissonance to still cling to this fantasy of yours:

What fantasy? You make out that I have a vested interest in demonstrating a link between autism and vaccines when in reality this is not the case.

Try taking the topic "seriously" by actually studying the overwhelming wealth of scientific studies that say otherwise, not just reading anti-vaccination blogs because they align with your word view. The great thing about science-based medicine is that it doesn't require belief, the data speaks for itself.

Have you personally verified every piece of scientific knowledge you have accumulated using direct scientific observation? If not, then you have acquired at least some information via belief.

The onus on you is to provide a wealth of scientific evidence equal to or greater than the staggering amount of evidence that debunks the vaccine/autism link. Fantastic claims requiring fantastic evidence and all that. The fact that you cling to long debunked beliefs demonstrates that your reasoning is not motivated by logic and evidence but "dem feels" and motivated reasoning.

More like "claims that I deem fantastical require an unreasonable amount of evidence to convince me, but claims that I support require barely any confirmation before I will willingly accept them."

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Pardon?
Only amongst those who already believe it i.e. the anti-vax, anti-science cult members.
They haven't with people who understand science.

People that are anti-vaccine are not necessarily anti-science. Are you implying that - with 100% certainty - there are no negative side-effects associated with taking vaccines?

And I don't follow your logic that this study is somehow "for" the pro-vax (normal) people.
If anything, it's anti-circ, it's got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with vaccinations.

You obviously are not much of a conspiracy researcher. Whether you like to admit it or not, more people are questioning whether vaccines are safe and beneficial. As more stories have surfaced about negative reactions to vaccines, the companies that benefit from their use have gone through great lengths to discredit and ridicule any suggestions that vaccines might be responsible.

Autism in particular has come up as a possible side-effect of vaccines. What better way to discredit any claims of linking Autism with vaccines than backing a study that makes outrageous claims (circumcision can lead to autism) about the condition (autism) that has become a hot topic of debate.

In the end, when people such as yourself hear about others questioning whether there is a correlation between autism and vaccines, you can just say pejoratively, "don't you know: circumcision causes autism too!" and any attempt to take the topic seriously has been squashed.

Yours is a very illogical and quite bizarre comment.
But then, an anti-vaxxer's logic isn't their strong point.

The onus is on you to now demonstrate how my comment was illogical. Good luck with that.

I can say with 100% certainty that vaccines do not cause autism.

And because of this your post was illogical to suppose that this study has anything to do with the "pro-vax sympathisers".

"And more stories have surfaced..." stories or verifiable data backed by evidence?
Autism "came up as a possible side-effect of vaccines" a few decades ago and despite the best efforts of the anti-science brigade doesn't even have a correlative association with them never mind any causative association.
But luddites such as yourself will still believe the same tired old tropes irrespective of facts.

And you're right, I'm not much of a conspiracy researcher, I prefer to research facts and evidence.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Pardon?

Almost all the risks are likely to come from a non medical professional.

Wearing a condom is great if you plan on never having children, and do not offer protection against cancer. Hygiene poses a daunting task for the elderly who are prone to debilitating UTI's, and before you speak I work in a hospital with the elderly and it's a very real risk.

So why circumcise them as children if any issues arise when they are adults or elderly?
Do it when necessary, not as a prophylactic measure.
And do it when the recipient can have a say. Surely that's only fair?
And condoms can prevent HPV which can cause penile cancer.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
It's not a straw-man argument, I was asking a question to another member.

It's a textbook strawman. NO ONE has ever claimed in this thread (or others) that vaccines have no side effects. ALL MEDICINE has the potential for side effects.

Who said anything about a causal link? THAT is an example of a straw-man. If you want to stretch things, I have implied there might be a correlative link between autism and vaccines. I never said or implied anything more.

Correlation =/= causation. The whole point of the anti-vaxer argument is that there's a CAUSAL link between them. Of course there's a correlation: most children are vaccinated. The vaccination times are also around the times that autism shows symptoms. That does NOT automatically mean the two are related. Not only from a logical point of view but also from numerous robust studies. The graph below shows a correlation between the uptake of organic food sales and autism diagnoses. It demonstrates this fallacious logic to humorous effect:

grist.files.wordpress.com...

What fantasy? You make out that I have a vested interest in demonstrating a link between autism and vaccines when in reality this is not the case.

So what exactly is your point then? Are you pushing a long debunked narrative for giggles? Have you watered your position down to "I'm just showing correlation"? Do you believe organic food sales are responsible for the increase in autism diagnosis?

Have you personally verified every piece of scientific knowledge you have accumulated using direct scientific observation? If not, then you have acquired at least some information via belief.

This is absolute nonsense. Why would I need to do that? Are you trying to lower cold, hard scientific evidence to the same level as personal belief? That might make your argument more stomachable to you but it's so utterly divorced from reality it's laughable. However, ANYONE is more than welcome to train as a scientist in the relevant fields and replicate the results for themselves (bit more involved than watching youtube videos and reading anti-vaxer blogs, admittedly). Luckily enough we have people who dedicate their lives to this sort of thing. Are you seriously suggesting that in order to accept a scientific claim supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence you have to independently replicate each and every study yourself? If so, "daft" doesn't even begin to describe your logic.

But all of this is nothing but a sideshow. Do you have ANY evidence to suggest these studies are flawed? Come on, let's hear it. Get stuck in and show us why these studies are flawed. No sidestepping, no hand waving, let's here your methodological critique.

More like "claims that I deem fantastical require an unreasonable amount of evidence to convince me, but claims that I support require barely any confirmation before I will willingly accept them."

It's almost as if you're talking to yourself in the mirror.


TL;DR: More fallacies and no rebuttal of scientific evidence. Business as usual for anti-vaxers.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
How about we just stop mutilating babies?... Why do we need a reason to stop doing that? It is a disgusting practice.

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

What are the risks of circumcision?
Like any surgical procedure, there are risks associated with circumcision. However, this risk is low. Problems associated with circumcision include:

Pain
Risk of bleeding and infection at the site of the circumcision
Irritation of the glans
Increased risk of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the penis)
Risk of injury to the penis

If it was not religious, I would 100% get my child circumcised. Most serious complications are avoided if done in a medical setting, and the benefits are pretty substantial, especially when that child becomes elderly.

Except that it belongs there.

I am not sure how in depth we can get into this topic seeing as this is not an 18+ website but I can not stress enough how important the foreskin is to the reproductive organ. It causes problems when removed besides the fact it is now deformed from it's natural state. Appearance (sure many women say clipped is better but they are full of bad advice lol) and pleasure are hugely effected by circumcision.

Arm pits can get infected. Behind your ear can get infected. Forecasting poor hygiene from people as an excuse to snip a piece of their penis off is not a very good reason by any standard other than religious. Plus you have to pay for it which puts in the profit racket and makes it suspect right away.

OH.....so the foreskin is involved with a male's brain function. Finally science backing up what society has known all along.

In hindsight I regret making my initial reply and apologise in particular to the author of this thread for dragging things off-topic. I am now leaving the thread as there is not much for me to share or gain from participating any further.

/exit thread.