Medical reviews in countries that do no routinely practice circumcision as a cultural matter seem never to conclude that circumcision is all that useful,
Nämlich Studien in Ländern wo routinemäßig Jungen vervstümmelt werden finden regelmäßig heraus, dass das nützlich ist.
Und die produzieren den Löwenanteil der Studien zu dem Thema.
Wen wundert das? Reine Selbstentlastung!
Brian Morris, the lead author of this latest literature review and the author of the 1999 book In Favour of Circumcision, has been on a mission to “rid the world of the male foreskin,” according to a review of his book by Basil Donovan, the Director of the Sydney Sexual Health Centre. Donovan writes that while Morris has published hundreds of papers on the benefits of circumcision, he’s a molecular geneticist, not a physician, and, furthermore, Donovan concludes that parts of Morris’s book are so misinformed and “dangerous” that there are “sufficient grounds for the publishers to withdraw the book.” Other researchers claim that Morris has a long habit of cherry-picking data. One of his preferred tactics, according to several critics, is to respond to any study that questions the validity of circumcision with a letter to that journal’s editor. He later cites his own letters in literature reviews that tout the benefits of circumcision, like the one published in Frontiers in Public Health.
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/03/0…ierce-criticism
siehe auch:
http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?opti…task=view&id=64