LogFAQs > #979266893

Tanthalas posted...

Oh there you go again, trying to shift the argument to something else to weasel yourself out of it.

1. There are plenty of organizations that are against circumcision because there is no real scientific proof that it provides any real benefits. Yet the CDC somehow managed to not consult any of them. This isn't an ethics thing.
2. Somehow the CDC only consulted with organizations that defend circumcision and only one lonely doctor in the whole group had ever published an article against the procedure.
The CDC's rebuttal doesn't address that at all (or if it did, I didn't find it, which is why I'm asking you to point out where this happened), yet you linked to that rebuttal as if it did.

Again, I am wildly confused as to what scientific research organizations you think are against circumcision that the CDC should have consulted and didnt.

if by consulted with organizations that defend circumcision you mean gathered data from researchers and doctors that determined with the scientific method that its minorly beneficial with negligible downsides, then I can see why youd be confused that they didnt consult with your imaginary organizations.

usually when a bunch of scientists use the scientific method to determine a thing and its fairly easy to determine, they tend to come to the same conclusions. If they dont, then, you know, there isnt a consensus and a recommendation wouldnt be made. If they didnt all agree, and thus are defending circumcision in your mind, the entire thing youre whining about would never have existed to begin with for you to question it.

as for where its pointed out, its sort of sprinkled through the whole thing where they repeatedly talk about the rigorous peer reviewed scientific process they reviewed to come to this conclusion, along with the supporting evidence and evidence summaries.

hope that helps.