[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: REQUEST : Foreskin / circumcision
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: REQUEST : Foreskin / circumcision
-
From: vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 29 Aug 1996 19:33:07 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Hindu Students Conference, Rice Univ Chapter
-
References: <ghenDwECG8.6BI@netcom.com> <ghenDwG471.H6x@netcom.com> <ghenDwLMoG.3G4@netcom.com> <ghenDwqLwu.Box@netcom.com>
In article <ghenDwqLwu.Box@netcom.com>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
>Thank you for your interesting explanation. Please allow me to say a few
>things about how such a study could be done. The validity of the study
>will necessarily depend on proper sampling.
Among other things, but fine, we're OK so far.
>Epidemiologists have standard
>charts for collecting such data. They typically chart many things, that
>may or may not be considered related at the outset. Only when a
>consistent pattern is obtained from the survey, a connection can me made.
I responded to this thread when you posted an article containing the
following statement:
>>>I can talk about my attitude about it. I think that it is enitrely
>>>unnecessary. It is amazing that even some doctors say that it prevents
>>>foreskin cancer. There is no study to support such a hypothesis, and
>>>they know that any study will prove them wrong. There are 930 Million
>>>Indians in India, 80% Hindus, none of them are circumcized, male or
>>>female, and foreskin cancer is not a common problem in India.
I found that paragraph highly misleading, and that's why I responded.
If you now want to suggest that not enough data is available, that
seems a little more plausible, but the paragraph to which I was
responding seems to be making a much stronger statement.
>Your hypothesis about longevity, is not very strong, because it has not
>been substantiated in any society.
My "hypothesis" is that longevity affects the rate at which people die
from long-term illnesses. If you don't believe it's been
substantiated, take a look at any of the debunking that's gone on in
rec.food.veg over the years, and you'll see why such cross-cultural
studies are suspect.
It's like saying "Indian children must be great swimmers, because so
few of them die in backyard swimming pool related drownings." Yes,
while there are relatively few children dying in India because they
drowned in the backyard swimming pool, there's an extra factor at work
here - there are few backyard swimming pools in India.
Likewise, cancer isn't an overnight phenomenon, and more and more
people are getting cancer these days simply because they're living
longer. The classic case is prostrate cancer - it just doesn't happen
to men in their 30's (well, in small numbers, definitely). It's a
cancer which affects older men.
If the case is the same with cancer of the foreskin or penis, then
longevity would have a definite effect on the rate of illness, and a
quick dismissal of the danger by saying "it's not a problem in India"
does more harm than good.
>There are two issues here; the "hope"
>that circumcision will get rid of the tissue that could become cancerous
>in future; and, the "protective" action of circumcision against the
>cancer. In order for the hypothesis to be accepted by the scientific
>community, especially the second must be found true. As far as I know,
>such a connection has not been established.
If you're going to make such precautionary statements now, I ask that
you do so uniformly - I got into this thread because of the lack of
caution in your earlier post.
-Vivek
