[Banana]

The WHO runs unscientific studies?It seemed pretty cut and dry, circumcised men have less of a chance at getting AIDS.Of course infants are not really at risk to get aids through sex but if you could give an infant a shot or perform a simple procedure that would to cut in half the risks of them developing a fatal disease and in turn passing that disease onto their own kids would you do it?I think you need to take a broader look at this topic and stop focusing on the mental repercussions of a procedure that most kids never would know was done to them unless they were told so and realize the big issue here is not that some ugandan boy thinks his dinger looks weird or his penis isnt as sensitive but the fact that half his family is infected with aids and people are dying by the hundreds of thousands from HIV.

But the WHO didn't run this study. At least not according to the link you provided. That's why I asked. They reported the findings of studies based in Kenya and Uganda.

The National Institue of Health clearly suggests that the HIV rate is lower in circumcized ADULTS. It also clearly states "The findings from the African studies may have less impact on the epidemic in the United States for several reasons. In the United States, most men have been circumcised. Also, there is a lower prevalence of HIV. Moreover, most infections among men in the United States are in men who have sex with men, for whom the amount of benefit provided by circumcision is unknown. Nonetheless, the overall findings of the African studies are likely to be broadly relevant regardless of geographic location: a man at sexual risk who is uncircumcised is more likely than a man who is circumcised to become infected with HIV. Still, circumcision is only part of a broader HIV prevention strategy that includes limiting the number of sexual partners and using condoms during intercourse."

I also wonder if the studies were ended early legitimately. Meaning, was it really ethics, or did they want to stop before the rate of circumcized HIV cases outnumbered the rate on intact HIV cases? >_>

Do we know the absolute rates of circumcision in the industrialized countries?
Do we know the absolute rates of condom useage in the industrialized countries?

At best, we have nothing but guesses. Science does not accept guesses as legitimate data and we cannot do any kind of legitimate scientific analysis based on such flimsy data.

If epidemiology does it accept it, then it clearly is not scientifically based, and by using it, it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. This why ANY so-called analysis is not scientifically valid--a lack of hard data precludes any.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that none of these studies (not the analysis of the studies) have been published. Wonder why?

And Bird, do you think most males really don't know they are missing their foreskin? It may not matter to you now, but you know and I guarantee, it matters to some men.