Circumcision Linked to Autism in New Danish Study

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Pardon?
You're correct however since it's pretty much accepted that autism is genetic this study seems pretty redundant.

So are many cancers. That doesn't mean that we can't ID and prevent things that increase the probabilities.

There are only a few genetic precursors for getting cancer.
This is completely different.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: GetHyped

By the people who make the vaccines?

Mmmhmm.

Nope.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ketsuko

Nothing wrong with showing correlation in science. It's the springboard for further, more rigorous research to find a causal link (if any). This study does just that: offers a starting point for further research. It could well turn out that there's absolutely nothing to it. And that's fine. It's how science works.

You're correct however since it's pretty much accepted that autism is genetic this study seems pretty redundant.

I'm guessing here (but I've seen it several times before) that an hypothesis has been put forward and the authors have used a specific algorithm to make the data fit that hypothesis.
I'm happy to keep an open mind on this but there's so much missing from it to be as robust as it should.

There are also studies that if there is any previous brain trauma, it can cause autism in the child. With my daughter she was born missing part of her brain. It's the Corpus Callosum, the part of the brain that connects the left half of the brain with the right. Medically she has two brains and has what is known as split brain personality. She had to undergo aquatic therapy to teach her to throw a ball from one hand to the other. Something we can do without thinking, she had to be trained to do. She also suffered oxygen loss at birth due to dying 3 times. Her doctors assume this is why she has autism, as there are some studies regarding autism and brain trauma. She also has a host of neurological issues related to the brain, but therapy has helped.

Like I said, I'm happy to keep an open mind on it but this study just doesn't ring true to me.
Aside from fitting the results to the hypothesis it's like they've purposely set it up for a follow-up study.
[cynicism] Perhaps they like their clinical research associate so much they want him or her to stay another couple of years [cynicism]

An easy comparison for them would be to study children from a predominantly muslim country such as Pakistan or Afghanistan etc and see what the percentage of autistic boys is there.
By the methods they've used it should be just short of 100%.


On a slightly different note here's a very touching blog by Carrie Cariello.
carriecariello.com...

originally posted by: Bluesma
Well, there you go, we always say men think with two heads....

No but seriously, I can't fathom how one could effect the other...? Do they have any hypothesis on how that could be?

The reference to ritual is because in Europe, it is only done for religious reasons, by jewish and muslims.
They don't do it systematically over here, like in the US.
Do they do it to everyone in England too?

well they stated the mechanism had not yet been identified, that means they do not know how one could effect the other

however it has already been demonstrated that when the health of a child is compromised and the immune system starts to overdrive, cognitive development is slowed until repairs to health are complete. it has also been demonstrated that slowing development in this way during the formative years of infancy can have a permanent negative impact on overall cognitive development.




its actually somewhat intuitive if you think about it, a happy healthy child can spend more energy focusing on developing its cognitive functions.

where as a unhealthy or injured child will instead be portioning out its energy to repair the damages.

with said logic its a wonder so many parents are happy to inject their children so much when they are infants with things that are DESIGNED to flare up their immune systems.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: GetHyped

By the people who make the vaccines?

Mmmhmm.

Nope.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Sure. Because there's absolutely no conflict of interest between government agencies, lawmakers, and big pharma.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Nice way to strawman yourself into an unfalsifiable position.

So the universities, scientists, independent research groups, pharma companies and government agencies all around the world are working in collusion for some grand conspiracy to... heck knows, your logic makes about as much sense as a knock to the head. And of course, absolutely no evidence is rpesented for this fantastic (and quite frankly, ludicrous) claim.

But somehow you claim to have evidence that vaccines cause autism, all stemming from a retracted paper of shockingly bad science by a guy who was being paid by lawyers to make a connection between MMR and autism (for $$$) and who was trying to discredit the existing MMR vaccine because he had patent for a rival vaccine (which he stood to make millions from).

But wait! He's a scientist! Therefore he's working in collusion with all the other agencies and research groups to... ah, who am I kidding, your logic is laughable, it's not even internally consistent, let alone substantiated in any manner.

This is total BS.

You'd think that since me and my two brothers had Jewfros, at least one of us would have "the tism".

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: ketsuko

Nothing wrong with showing correlation in science. It's the springboard for further, more rigorous research to find a causal link (if any). This study does just that: offers a starting point for further research. It could well turn out that there's absolutely nothing to it. And that's fine. It's how science works.

You're correct however since it's pretty much accepted that autism is genetic this study seems pretty redundant.

I'm guessing here (but I've seen it several times before) that an hypothesis has been put forward and the authors have used a specific algorithm to make the data fit that hypothesis.
I'm happy to keep an open mind on this but there's so much missing from it to be as robust as it should.

There are also studies that if there is any previous brain trauma, it can cause autism in the child. With my daughter she was born missing part of her brain. It's the Corpus Callosum, the part of the brain that connects the left half of the brain with the right. Medically she has two brains and has what is known as split brain personality. She had to undergo aquatic therapy to teach her to throw a ball from one hand to the other. Something we can do without thinking, she had to be trained to do. She also suffered oxygen loss at birth due to dying 3 times. Her doctors assume this is why she has autism, as there are some studies regarding autism and brain trauma. She also has a host of neurological issues related to the brain, but therapy has helped.

Like I said, I'm happy to keep an open mind on it but this study just doesn't ring true to me.
Aside from fitting the results to the hypothesis it's like they've purposely set it up for a follow-up study.
[cynicism] Perhaps they like their clinical research associate so much they want him or her to stay another couple of years [cynicism]

An easy comparison for them would be to study children from a predominantly muslim country such as Pakistan or Afghanistan etc and see what the percentage of autistic boys is there.
By the methods they've used it should be just short of 100%.


On a slightly different note here's a very touching blog by Carrie Cariello.
carriecariello.com...

Birth complications linked to autism

Researchers note that many of these complications tend to occur together in difficult or high-risk deliveries, making it difficult to finger a single suspect.

But broadly, researchers note, they seem to be related to oxygen deprivation and growth retardation.

“Reduced oxygen supply, during labor, during delivery, during the prenatal period, during early infancy, could influence autism risk,” says study researcher Hannah Gardener, ScD, an epidemiologist at the University of Miami’s Miller School of Medicine. “We can’t say that definitely from our study, but that certainly is one possibility.”

Other factors tied to increased autism risk, though to a lesser degree, included congenital malformations, breech and other kinds of abnormal birth positions, multiple birth, a low 5-minute Apgar score, weighing less than 5.5 pounds at birth, umbilical cord complications, fetal distress, being small for gestational age.

(My daughter had a congenital brain malformation, was in fetal distress, had NO oxygen, let alone reduced. All of these factors are listed in the study and was pointed out by her neurologist.) Now mind you I recognize some studies can be wrong and I'm willing to admit that.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Pardon?
You're correct however since it's pretty much accepted that autism is genetic this study seems pretty redundant.

So are many cancers. That doesn't mean that we can't ID and prevent things that increase the probabilities.

There are only a few genetic precursors for getting cancer.
This is completely different.

Your right it is completely different.

There are currently ZERO genetic precursors confirmed for Autism.

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Pardon?
You're correct however since it's pretty much accepted that autism is genetic this study seems pretty redundant.

So are many cancers. That doesn't mean that we can't ID and prevent things that increase the probabilities.

There are only a few genetic precursors for getting cancer.
This is completely different.

Your right it is completely different.

There are currently ZERO genetic precursors confirmed for Autism.

I'm not sure what you mean by "genetic precursor" precisely but there is a proved genetic (and heritable, but that is a slightly different story) component to autism. In fact there is a genetic correlation between autism and schizophrenia. However, where schizophrenia shows disruptions or a complete absence of certain genetic components autism shows a doubling. This is not shared in all of the genetic material but in enough to indicate some sort of correlation between the two.

OMFG....scuba steve has now heard it all.....this crap got 8 flags....wtf.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: GetHyped

By the people who make the vaccines?

Mmmhmm.

Nope.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Sure. Because there's absolutely no conflict of interest between government agencies, lawmakers, and big pharma.

And which of those three do the authors of this study come under?
You haven't even looked at it have you?

The reason I chose it is because none of the authors have any link to vaccines at all.
It's about as independent a study as you can get.

But don't let your beliefs get in the way of facts eh?

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: peck420

originally posted by: Pardon?
You're correct however since it's pretty much accepted that autism is genetic this study seems pretty redundant.

So are many cancers. That doesn't mean that we can't ID and prevent things that increase the probabilities.

There are only a few genetic precursors for getting cancer.
This is completely different.

Your right it is completely different.

There are currently ZERO genetic precursors confirmed for Autism.

By zero do you mean none or none that you are aware of?

healthland.time.com...


Like I said (again) I'll keep an open mind on this but there's so much left out of the study and that makes it difficult to take it seriously.

a reply to: Pardon?

I'll let my experience get in the way of one independent study.

I say the jury is still out. And I didn't see the NIH hightailing their asses down to Atlanta when that happened either. What I saw was doctors and lawyers hiding things and making excuses.

You let me know about those beliefs of yours when you live through it with your child.

a reply to: GetHyped

I made NO claim that they caused autism.

Show me where I did that.

What I said is that, well, see above and my other posts.

Nice try.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

Let's review the thread of conversation, shall we?

You said:

"More likely it's the vaccines administered at the same time as most circs are done."

Nothing to read behind the lines here, you clearly insinuated that it was "most likely" the vaccines causing the autism.

To which I replied (refuting the vaccines/autism link):

"Nope. That argument has long been debunked a thousand times over."

To which you replied:

"By the people who make the vaccines? Mmmhmm."

The implication, of course, being that the studies that refute the vaccines/autism link are somehow fabricated by the pharmaceutical companies (which is utter bollocks)

To which I replied (refuting the idea that only pharma companies are producing such studies):

"By researchers from multiple disciplines, countries and institutions. "

Pardon? also offered up independent evidence refuting the vaccines/autism link with this meta-study: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

To which you AGAIN tried to insinuate that there is a coverup from pharma companies about vaccines and autism:

"Sure. Because there's absolutely no conflict of interest between government agencies, lawmakers, and big pharma."

You ignore the evidence presented and instead cling to your conspiratorial fantasy by repeating the same worn out mantra.

And so on the thread goes.

Finally, you make the laughable claim (you're on a roll, son) that you made "NO claim that they caused autism".

Now, you may try and pull the pedant gambit but it's pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't drag their knuckles exactly what the narrative you were spinning was.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Pardon?

I'll let my experience get in the way of one independent study.

I say the jury is still out. And I didn't see the NIH hightailing their asses down to Atlanta when that happened either. What I saw was doctors and lawyers hiding things and making excuses.

You let me know about those beliefs of yours when you live through it with your child.

You still haven't even looked at the study have you?

It's not simply "one independent study", it's a meta-analysis of several studies involving a total of over 1.2 million children.
Just in case you're unsure what meta-analyses are...
www.medicine.ox.ac.uk...

And I think you should also look up confirmation bias too.

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.

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.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Quite - it has always baffled me why it is so popular in the US among those who aren't Jewish/Muslim.

I have only known two blokes in my whole life who've had it done, one a cousin and the other a school friend and in both cases it was for medical reasons. In fact, circumcision is so rare in the UK that we thought it odd enough to take the piss out them, as boys are prone to do.

Any argument that it is "more hygienic" or gives you better sex is bogus.

Totally agreed.

I was married to an English man for several years, and it was something I brought as he was "natural". It was not the first time I had seen a natural male member, I had dated British and mainland European men in the past. I told him that over 80% of American men were circumcised, and he was shocked, and wanted to know why. I told him that it was pushed on a lot of new unknowing parents as more "hygeinic", and that they were also being told that having a foreskin would cause you to grow up with all sorts of painful penis problems and erectile dysfunction, and his response was to the effect of "Bloody Rubbish" and the only people he knew of that circumcised boys were the Jews. Of course, I agreed with him, but was using it as an example of how religious superstitions still hold too much sway in the U.S., including medicine.

In my experience, uncircumcised penises are no more dirty or prone to infections that a cut one, and only a tiny minority of men ever experience problems that require foreskin removal. Yet as far as I know, the practice is still wide spread and pushed by American doctors despite no sound medical reason for it. And sadly, when I bring these facts to other Americans, many still strongly cling to the belief that uncircumcised penises are nasty, fungus goo infested dysfunctional abominations that must be "treated".

How this practice got rooted in the U.S., and why doctors aren't being more truthful, are things that still puzzle me.