Quick question for you...

Here's the thing. You're claiming that the "scientific and medical community" looked at those studies, they found them fatally flawed. If that's the case, why are all these scientific and medical organizations still advocating the practice? If the studies were fatally flawed ala Andrew Wakefield (since you claimed that they took money from religious groups with an agenda), then why haven't the scientists lost their medical licences, the studies been retracted, etc.? You're basically claiming that they are fatally flawed, positing a bunch of reasons why with no citations (and other anti-circ pages citing them don't count as citations. I want serious evidence from an unbiased, credible source showing why they are flawed), and then going off and making nonsensical analogies about cutting off breasts, which is just ridiculous- that is nothing like what I am proposing so please stop attacking strawmen.

As to "all else being equal", we'e not discussing all else being equal. We're discussing whether or not it's acceptable to use this as a way to slow the spread of a disease that is causing millions of deaths a year because evidence shows that it would help. I don't think many people would prefer to have a foreskin and also have HIV as opposed to having neither. Sure, condoms and education help better, but that is an approach that has been tried for years, and it certainly doesn't seem to be dropping transmission rates to US levels. The point is, while education may well be a "better" solution, it's also a long-term solution- and people are dying now. There's no reason why we shouldn't do everything in our power to stop deaths just because you feel a bit squeamish about it.

What medial boards are advising this? WHO is - against serious challenges from France, Germany among others.

The American Pediatrics association advises AGAINST it. Doctors without Boarders will not perform the procedure cause they disagree with the interpretations of the study.

You didn't answer any of the arguments laid against this study.

1. why are no medical professionals in agreement with how this could help?
2. Why have these studies not been replicated?
3. Why did the US (where we have circumcision) not have less AIDS than France or Germany in the 1980's before we knew anything about AIDS?

These are not trivial little "I don't like that study".

You mention vaccination. There are THOUSANDS of studies about vaccination that all agree with eachother. We know how vaccination works, and why it works. We have real time evidence that it works. WE have NONE Of that for Circumcision...

"even so, all else being equal". Ruptured appendix can and often does cause death -- why would we not agree with cutting it out before hand, to prevent it?

AGain, you want us to "take the studies" without question. But the second you start to question them, the whole thing falls apart.

Again, let's get it straight on exactly who (WHO) is advocating for this - cause it's not "all the medical community" the way vaccination is, or the way birth control is, or condom use. It's one group, following a set of studies that are challenged on so many grounds.

Until or unless those challenges can be answered, it's time to say "what's going on". I like how you belittle me as if i'm not being "skeptic" enough. What do you think reading the studies AND the challenges, and the opinions of major world orgs is doing, if not being skeptical?

I answered question #3 below- you can't just compare countries because you aren't conrolling for variables. I also proposed a solution for #1 that I've seen printed in various places, including that CDC website and the American Acadamy of Pediatrics- here's the CDC link, which includes links to dozens of studies and meta-analyses on the subject that you might want to look through.