Botched circumcision of American infant boy severes entire glans!!!!!!! 10% circ complication rate "normal"

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:21:08 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:14:51 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


I asked for a percentage.
----------------------
It's irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
--------------
And then you deleted where I answered you,

You didn't answer my question. You made excuses about why you felt it was
not relevant. There is a difference.
----------------------
You're not the arbiter of what I get to say in response to you.
You may not LIKE it, you may call it all sorts of lies to try
to deflect it, but it STANDS, and it IS the answer to you!!

Obviously, you're free to write whatever nonsense you like, but that does
not make it an answer.
-------------------
It makes it an asnwer if I say it does, whether you grasp that fact
or not, you ****ty disingenuous dishonest posturing little liar!


No. The Africa data ONLY shows that among men who use anal intercourse
as a form of contraception, that the passing of HIV is slightly greater
among those circumcised.

Um, no. Firstly, the data show lesser, not greater seroconversion. Second,
there is no indication whatsoever that anal intercourse was used as a form
of contraception.
---------------------
Every criticism of that study says that, AND that the groups were
picked from different tribes with different customs, and which also
divided them by rural vs city people, a death sentence for your grade
in methodology!


But so slightly that it's irrelevant compared
to other methods of preventing the spread of HIV, such as condoms,
which washes out the whole effect ANYWAY!!

There was a roughly 2-fold difference.
-------------------------
Nonsense. The effect was trivial compared to that of condoms.
EVERYTHING ELSE is trivial compared to the effect of condoms!


the rate of circumcision among males who became HIV+
will be lower than in the general population.
----------------------------
Liar. Not in the USA or Europe.

See "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States" in
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm
-----------------------------
THAT paper is ALSO skeptical of the effect of circumcision in the
USA regarding HIV! Since we have fewer than 1 in 5000 people getting
HIV in a given year, circumcision could at most make a difference of
a couple people tops, which does NOT justify circumcising the entire
population, nor any member of it, when testing and condoms can do
the job FAR better and prevent virtually ALL of it!!

We do NOT, for instance, mastectomize little girls to prevent breast
cancer, despite it being pandemic!


Thus the claim that "most" were circumcised is highly dubious.
------------------------------
That's a statistic that even those against infant circumcision in
the USA admit!! You silly jerkoff!

You evidently fail to understand the mathematics. What will help?
-----------------------------
Being a phyusicist, I understand math just fine, thanks, but you seem
to have no realistic perspective on what the numbers actually MEAN!!


Now that
statistic is slowly changing toward leaving males intact, moreso
every year, which I know ****es you off. Good riddance.

Not according to available evidence.
-----------------------------
You're a stupid posturing little liar.
ANYBODY can look THAT up and find that you're LYING!

Whatever you say.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0040223
-----------------------
The article you cited before contradicts that. Novel!
You will post any selected piece of crap if it says what you want,
wontcha, you little ****!??


In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!

Sigh.
-----------------
As I said, I'm glad that ****es you off.

Why would it do that? By your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".
-----------------
All you do is spew more ****-****ing bald-faced lies!!

Anyone can read your post and see the words "...we could incorrectly infer
that..."
--------------------
YOU said that, you ****-****ing bald-faced little liar!
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:
Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:



As they say about you Steve, they can take the boy out of the trailer
park but they can't take the trailer park out of the boy. Learn to live
with it Steve.

-----------------
You're lying as always. You know I've never lived in a trailer.
Steve

I don't know that Steve. From the way you behave around here I bet its a
sure thing that you are trailer trash.
-----------------------------
Why do you think such semi-racist classist crap? It wouldn't matter
if I ever lived in a trailer or not, that's just plain STUPID! But
for your info I haven't happened to have lived in a trailer, Jake,
you stupid deceptive piece of ****. All you do with this **** is
try to distract people from noticing your other lies!
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 08:01:16 -0700, TLC Tugger wrote:


How about for the 25 or so years it took a half-million US men (most
of whom who were circumcised at birth) to die of AIDS.

Oh? What percentage of male US AIDS patients were circumcised at birth?

-----------------------------
Most. Dumb****. In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!


No sane person could conclude that.
--------------------------
That is what your crap looks like, you know, just like that kind of
illogic!


The studies that we are specifically talking about relate to the 60%
reduction of risk of infection from female to male heterosexual
intercourse.
--------------------------
Which amounts to 1 in a thousand people a year. BUY THEM SOME CONDOMS!
We don't ALL have to have surgery to achieve the same end, you
DUMB****!!


Now lets look at the US stats shall we from
http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm
--------------------
None of that is relevant.


You see Steve you are a lunatic, which most people will recognise
anyways. Any chance you gonna stop posting your garbage?
-------------------------
You're nothing but a carefully lying deceptove little piece of ****.
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

Rogered wrote:

On Jul 21, 10:30 pm, "Wadi (the original)" wrote:

Rogered wrote:


Circumcision is obscene...and the finished product is mighty ugly.

Rogered

Are you one of those shallow people who formed an opinion based on a
personal preference? You got a cute little foreskin fetish perhaps?


****off. Your the sort of **** who would bites of dogs tails because
of the look. Circumcision is not as nature intended. I stand by my
initial phrase, the human cock looks and feels much better with a
foreskin.

Rogered


The foreskin is a hideous vestigial appendage which no longer serves any
function.
----------------------
This proves you're not only a liar, but fixated and insane.
The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex
and the organ that results in the most sexual pleasure for women!
Steve

Wadi (the original) wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Wadi (the original) wrote:

"SYDNEY (Reuters) - The world's biggest scientific HIV/AIDS conference
opened in Australia on Sunday with experts calling for more funding for
research and new findings which suggest male circumcision can reduce
infection by 60 percent.

A briefing note said male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa would
prevent 5.7 million new cases of HIV infection and 3 million deaths over
20 years."

------------------
After some initial hoopla, they are now looking at this with more
skepticism as to its origins and intent.
Steve

I don't know Steve they seem to be on a roll...

Read about it here http://allcircumcision.blogspot.com/
----------------------
Blogs are lies, rumors, mistakes, and errors.
Steve

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:46:37 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex

You're getting really good at these made-up statistics, Steve.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:37:12 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 08:21:08 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 16:14:51 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:


I asked for a percentage.
----------------------
It's irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is highly relevant. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.
--------------
And then you deleted where I answered you,

You didn't answer my question. You made excuses about why you felt it was
not relevant. There is a difference.
----------------------
You're not the arbiter of what I get to say in response to you.
You may not LIKE it, you may call it all sorts of lies to try
to deflect it, but it STANDS, and it IS the answer to you!!

Obviously, you're free to write whatever nonsense you like, but that does
not make it an answer.
-------------------
It makes it an asnwer if I say it does, whether you grasp that fact
or not, you ****ty disingenuous dishonest posturing little liar!

Clearly that's what you want to believe.



No. The Africa data ONLY shows that among men who use anal intercourse
as a form of contraception, that the passing of HIV is slightly greater
among those circumcised.

Um, no. Firstly, the data show lesser, not greater seroconversion. Second,
there is no indication whatsoever that anal intercourse was used as a form
of contraception.
---------------------
Every criticism of that study says that,

Please cite one example, published in a peer-reviewed journal.

AND that the groups were
picked from different tribes with different customs, and which also
divided them by rural vs city people, a death sentence for your grade
in methodology!

LOL! Nope. Try reading up on what is meant by 'randomised controlled trial'.



But so slightly that it's irrelevant compared
to other methods of preventing the spread of HIV, such as condoms,
which washes out the whole effect ANYWAY!!

There was a roughly 2-fold difference.
-------------------------
Nonsense. The effect was trivial compared to that of condoms.
EVERYTHING ELSE is trivial compared to the effect of condoms!

Don't confuse you with the facts, eh?



the rate of circumcision among males who became HIV+
will be lower than in the general population.
----------------------------
Liar. Not in the USA or Europe.

See "HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States" in
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/fac...rcumcision.htm
-----------------------------
THAT paper is ALSO skeptical of the effect of circumcision in the
USA regarding HIV! Since we have fewer than 1 in 5000 people getting
HIV in a given year, circumcision could at most make a difference of
a couple people tops, which does NOT justify circumcising the entire
population, nor any member of it, when testing and condoms can do
the job FAR better and prevent virtually ALL of it!!

So the HIV cases are just an illusion?


We do NOT, for instance, mastectomize little girls to prevent breast
cancer, despite it being pandemic!


Now you're making no sense at all.


Thus the claim that "most" were circumcised is highly dubious.
------------------------------
That's a statistic that even those against infant circumcision in
the USA admit!! You silly jerkoff!

You evidently fail to understand the mathematics. What will help?
-----------------------------
Being a phyusicist, I understand math just fine, thanks, but you seem
to have no realistic perspective on what the numbers actually MEAN!!

Clearly you are having difficulties in this particular case.



Now that
statistic is slowly changing toward leaving males intact, moreso
every year, which I know ****es you off. Good riddance.

Not according to available evidence.
-----------------------------
You're a stupid posturing little liar.
ANYBODY can look THAT up and find that you're LYING!

Whatever you say.
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...l.pmed.0040223
-----------------------
The article you cited before contradicts that. Novel!

Neither article focused on this particular subject, but the latter one is
slightly more thorough in its treatment of US circumcision rates.

You will post any selected piece of crap if it says what you want,
wontcha, you little ****!??


In fact from that we could incorrectly infer that
circumcision CAUSES HIV!!

Sigh.
-----------------
As I said, I'm glad that ****es you off.

Why would it do that? By your own admission, your inference is
"incorrect".
-----------------
All you do is spew more ****-****ing bald-faced lies!!

Anyone can read your post and see the words "...we could incorrectly infer
that..."
--------------------
YOU said that, you ****-****ing bald-faced little liar!

No. You did, in your post dated Sun, 22 Jul 2007 20:38:41 -0700

Steve

On Jul 25, 9:39 am, "Wadi (the original)" wrote:
Rogered wrote:
On Jul 21, 10:30 pm, "Wadi (the original)" wrote:

Rogered wrote:

Circumcision is obscene...and the finished product is mighty ugly.

Rogered

Are you one of those shallow people who formed an opinion based on a
personal preference? You got a cute little foreskin fetish perhaps?

****off. Your the sort of **** who would bites of dogs tails because
of the look. Circumcision is not as nature intended. I stand by my
initial phrase, the human cock looks and feels much better with a
foreskin.

Rogered

The foreskin is a hideous vestigial appendage which no longer serves any
function. There is some hope though and that is instead of tossing
circumcised foreskins into the trash can they may be used to culture
skin graft material, but then again as one infant foreskin can culture
up to six football fields worth of skin graft material not that may will
be needed. So the majority get to end up where they belong... in the
trash can.

Maybe your foreskin or indeed the inch or so beneath never served any
purpose.

Rogered

On Jul 23, 7:29?am, Rogered wrote:
I stand by my
initial phrase, the human cock looks and feels much better with a
foreskin.

It looks better??????? You must have some visual defect. A cock
with a foreskin looks like a snail on boys and like an aardvarks snout
on men, and the older the men get the uglier it gets. I suppose you
think cocks with foreskins smell better, too?

As for it feeling better, how do you know? Did you get circumcised
when you were old enough to compare the difference before and after?

The foreskin is an evolutionary hangover from our primitive past. It
is sexually dysfunctional in the modern world and is a major public
health risk as well, causing various maladies including millions of
deaths from HIV and cervical cancer.

Jake Waskett wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:46:37 -0700, R. Steve Walz wrote:

The foreskin contains half the nerves critical to pleasure in sex

You're getting really good at these made-up statistics, Steve.
------------------------
That isn't made-up, you just don't LIKE the Truth, and you don't
BELIEVE it because it doesn't suit your sick agenda!!
Steve