"Circumcision has health benefits"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Like some prophet say, drink camel's urine. The standard remedy for all sorts of illness.

To respond to Gregory J. Boyle:

'According to Jake Waskett, "The inner surface of the foreskin, which is rich in HIV receptors, and the frenulum, a common site for trauma and other sexually transmitted infections, must be regarded as the most probable sites for viral entry in primary HIV infection in men."' -- please read my post *carefully*. I clearly indicated (using quotation marks, no less) that these words belonged to the source we were discussing - Szabo and Short.

"Unfortunately, Waskett is quite ill-informed. To the contrary, the study by de Witte et al. (2007) actually showed that Langerin cells in the inner foreskin prevent HIV-1 transmission." -- Here you're making several mistakes: oversimplifying, and believing that one of a number of studies to investigate is "the truth".

The most serious mistake is to believe that if Langerhans protect against HIV, they cannot facilitate HIV infection. The reality appears to be more complex. Recent reviews (by de Witte and Geijtenbee, who authored the earlier letter which you cited) suggest that LCs can play both roles, depending on the situation: "However, immune activation of LCs [ie., Langerhans Cells] changes these protective cells into HIV-1-transmitting cells, which indicates that the antiviral function of LCs depends on several factors including co-infections." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21030306 "[the] protective function of LCs is dependent on the function of the C-type lectin Langerin: blocking Langerin function by high virus concentrations enables HIV-1 transmission by LCs" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18055263

Continuation of my last message

More to Kinsley: Using words like "amutation" and mutilation"
certainly adds "charge" to the debate but doesn't help your argument.
You seem to condemn pro-circumcision advocates simply because they're
pro-circumcision. From what I've read they are rational and base
their stance on scientific evidence. On the anti-circ side, all I see
are emotional people who won't believe there are health benefits to
circumcision no matter how much solid evidence is presented.

To Boyle: Langerhans cells are quickly overwhelmed by HIV at which \
time HIV is provided easy enter into the system.

As time goes on and more studies are done, the anti-circs will have
a harder time claiming there are no health benefits to circumcision.
The results are coming in from the mass circumcisions and the results
match the studies.

To Philip Tang: He who laughs last laughs loudest. The Cochrane
Institute thinks there are health benefits as do the WHO and UNAIDS.
In fact they are so convinced that they are advocating mass circ's
in Africa. And the results are extremely encouraging. Laugh all
you want and bury your head and ignore the obvious.

what is good..for the male baby
is good for the mother..and female baby!

uncircumsided females..get more hurt by circumsized men
who hurt woman more...by friction/tearing...the spin
of the chosen people wont change
the simple facts..

if a woman wants her male child to.."look pretty"
she should undergo the same 'cure'

whats good for the baby
must be better..to the mother!

and more urgent
to the sexually active mother

it has nothing to do with feling better with or without
but uncircumsized men...dont enjoy regular sex..[they hit and run..tear in and tear up..

because they look so pretty]

lets amputate prostates at birth
or pre-empt breast cancer..testicular cancer
find those susseptable to aids...cut off more bits

medisin
allways gets it right
lets kill the unborn..mutilate them..for life

its a..[proven fact]..that this traumatic mutilation
changes the baby mutilated..into adrenolin junkies

[noting the extended war,between
the two main circumsized belief systems]

more foreskins
mean's more peace
less foreskins..mean ever more war

whats the death rate[ratio],..in war/murders
as meaured by the square inches of skin..brutalised..[upon innocents]

think of the mindset
i love you god..but the kid..is not perfect

but
we can make him pretty...[so he can die or kill by war]

stop kickstarting hate..
in kids by severe trauma events

if you think it feels good..
do it to mum!
[first]..

Male neonatal circumcision imposed on unconsenting, defenceless babies is a harmful operation that violates ethical medical practice. Parents cannot provide proxy consent for a non-therapeutic amputation of a child's healthy body part.

See: Boyle GJ, Svoboda JS, Price CP, Turner JN. Circumcision of healthy boys: Criminal assault? J Law Med 2000;7:301-10. http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/boyle1

The pro-circumcision fetishists, paedophiles and criminals have deliberately misled the public as to the supposed health benefits of male genital mutilation, but are notably silent on the parallel "health benefits" of female genital mutilation (perpetrated on over 100 million Muslim girls in Indonesia alone).

See: Boyle GJ, Hill G. Sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission: Methodological, ethical and legal concerns. J Law Med 2011;19:316-34.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112011/circumcision-hiv-rg.php

It's time to state clearly that circumcision imposed on unconsenting defenceless infants is in fact genital mutilation (sexual reduction surgery), an extreme form of sexual child abuse. It is time to commence legal prosecutions against all those involved in promoting or imposing involuntary circumcision on unconsenting minors.

To Bolye, are there any more charged words you'd like to add
that you can't support? You left out "mutilation".

Infants can't consent to anything. Parents make life and death
decisions for their children. We can all hope that parents
have the best interest of the children in mind. Circumcision
has documented health benefits and parents should be the ones
to decide if those benefits outweigh the risks.

"Male neonatal circumcision imposed on unconsenting, defenceless
babies is a harmful operation that violates ethical medical practice.
Parents cannot provide proxy consent for a non-therapeutic amputation
of a child's healthy body part."