Alright then, pack up everyone, no more research in case it worries someone.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Circumcision doubles autism risk, study claims
- Thread starter Sage00
- Start date
- Status
Alright then, pack up everyone, no more research in case it worries someone.
Dictator93
Member
Well like anything with genetic predispositions, its severity or how it manifests is influenced by environmental factors.
Like diabetus, cancer, schiz, etc...
I think the consensus now is that while it has a strong genetic component there are environmental factors that affect the chance of being autistic.
True, but maybe the anesthetic helps dull everything so the baby's brain can't grasp the scope of the pain it's going through...or something? I don't know. I wouldn't say I believe this study 100% but, I wouldn't say getting your genitals mutilated is something that has no effect on a brain.
ZackieChan
Member
You can?
Wouldn't it have to stand up to peer review and scientific community scrutiny?
ChubbyHuggs
Member
Still attached, breh.
That's what I say when ever I read that I have higher chances for cancer and other stuff for still having it.
SliceSabre
Banned
Just because a study is peer review doesn't make you couldn't play around with figures to get the result you were looking for.
Just like all those 'peer reviewed' studies that prove vaccines cause Autism.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
You identify and isolate all other factors and ideally some sort of evidence to prove how it does you believe is occurring rather than an unsubstantiated guess. Obvious this is a simplification as there's also lots various types of modelling you can do.
For example in this case it could be the family's in question that wanted to have their child circumstance and had higher risk factors with autism than those that did not. The environment the children that had circumcision was more prone to influence autism tendencies and so lots, the potential factors for these sorts of thing can be extreme large and you must isolate all most if not all of them to have remotely accurate results. I have no idea if the scientists did all this, but it's the sorts of things you have to think about.
Which is why the statement correlation does not equal causation exists.
Can i see a couple?
ZackieChan
Member
All of them? I think there was just one, right?
And that's why others try to reproduce the results. Which, as someone else pointed out in this, this was one of them.
I just take issue with your blanket statement that anyone could do this. I think that reality tells a very different story.
Don Chalupa
Banned
Moreover, rates of autism have been increasing through the decades, correlated to the rate of birth and labor interventions like a c-section, which is also a traumatic and unnatural event for the baby at such a critical stage. Circumsition, paired with the fact that more boys do get autism, makes sense as one of the traumas that can lead to autism.
Dictator93
Member
This is just begging for a joke.
Her son had a circumcision. Because she wanted him to have a pretty penis.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
That literally makes no sense.
Circumcision is not tbe cause of autism, even if the paper is true.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
The entire system is designed to prevent it but if what you studying isn't particularly well understood or difficult to get concrete data, then there's been plenty of researchers that have gone of living of the acclaim of thesis whose findings were faulty at best.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
I shake my head too, but that's because I'm circumcised.
OminoMichelin
Member
The only difference is how the parents deal with it, it can be managed when you act early.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Honestly don't understand, why i could easily shake my head at the gaf circumization dislike force or whatever you'd call it because there's been studies that the procedure can positive and now negative. The only reason anyone would make a definitive decision on the procedure is down to blatant bias, where these studies are truly irrelevant in changing their minds.
Fact of the matter is parents have a lot of power that'll determine that lives of a child, mostly because children can't make the decision themselves or are unable to make an informed decision. I may not personally agree with it but it's one decisions among thousands that a parent will make for their children and clearly not negative enough to warrant child services intervention. So i'm in the middle I wouldn't do it for my child but I'm not about the villainaise or praise someone else for doing it to there's
Dictator93
Member
löl
Hence I don't get the defense force thing. Because there's this weird superiority/inferiority going on where it seems like they're trying to justify their standpoint. An anti-circumcision defense force would be equally pointless when - as you note - it comes to blatant bias anyway.
She'll probably avoid this at all costs. Vaccines were 'forced' by doctors, the circumcision was her decision.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
And the benefits still outweigh this purported "risk". Move along.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports/?_r=0
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-study-reports/?_r=0
Templar Wizard
Member
Whats Israel's autistic percentile?
Honey Bunny
Member
Foreskin won.
Thats too sensible though.
Reactions from a few experts, who bring up some good points:
(Mind you, I'm against performing circumcision on children regardless, and think people should be able to decide for themselves if a circumcision is right for them once they're adults.)
“The findings of this research, whilst interesting, need to be considered carefully – one cannot draw very strong conclusions from the data. This is not a causal study, but instead compares data sets and looks for correlations. Whilst this is a valid way of doing a study, it means that we must be careful about any implications. For example, many cases of autism are missed until children are older and as there are relatively few cases of autism this could easily skew the data. The rate of identified autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in the early circumcision group was less than 1.5%, i.e. well within the general population rates for ASD (1-2% at least). Furthermore, there are many potentially confounding variables which could explain raised ASD rates, which the authors do not explore or account for. Finally, I have some issues with the premise in that their speculations regarding early pain as a cause of autism are, to say the least, highly speculative! Therefore the findings of this study, and their interpretation, should be treated with extreme caution.”
"This study raises an interesting question, but one that cannot be fully answered with these data. The study is observational, and in such studies it’s always tricky to tell what causes what. The observed increase in risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in circumcised boys might be due to the circumcision, or it might not. Religions that prescribe circumcision prescribe other things too, such as diet or clothing. Perhaps differences in diet or clothing lead to the increased ASD risk, rather than the circumcision. Cultural and family differences may be crucial. The researchers try to deal with this issue in two ways, but in my view neither is completely satisfactory. They record ‘cultural background’ and allow for that in the analysis. But the fact that they label some families as ‘Muslim’ doesn’t mean that they are actually Muslim. It means that the boy in question had at least one parent or grandparent who was born in one of 17 predominantly Muslim countries. So the family may be Muslim, or it may not. The researchers don’t know which families are Muslim – they merely have a rough idea. There will be important differences between families that would be missed even if we did know exactly who was Muslim, but this vagueness makes things worse. The researchers tried to deal with these differences further by investigating whether the sisters of circumcised boys had an increased risk of ASD. The idea is that family influences should work in the same way in the sisters as in their circumcised brothers, so if the increased risk in the boys is due to something about their families, it should show up in the sisters too. But I think there are problems here too. First, it’s well known that girls and boys differ in ASD risk, so perhaps things just work differently in girls in relation to ASD. Then, they compared the sisters of circumcised boys with all other girls, not just those with an uncircumcised brother. Perhaps the mere fact of having a brother has some impact on ASD risk, so this may not be a fair comparison. They measured the risk of a having a circumcised brother as starting at the date of circumcision, whereas if it’s due to family circumstances, those are unlikely to change at the moment of circumcision. Finally, they did actually find an increased ASD risk in the sisters – the increase was not statistically significant, but ‘not statistically significant’ means that the increase might have been zero, not that the increase IS definitely zero. So including the girls does not get round the problems at all, in my view."
“I think this is an extremely speculative study that needs very careful handling in the popular media. The study is purely based on register data and takes a registered autism diagnosis at face value, without considering cultural or social factors affecting the likelihood of an (early) autism diagnosis. Even in a high income country like Denmark not all children with autism are detected and given a suitable autism diagnosis at an early age (the age under study in this paper). This study tries to implicate a link between ritual circumcision and the risk for autism. Important to note is the data used in the analyses: The authors linked autism diagnoses as recorded in the Danish public health system with whether boys had undergone circumcision in Danish hospitals or private clinics. Any boys undergoing circumcision outside the Danish medical system were left unaccounted for. Likewise, any children who may warrant an autism diagnosis but have not yet been formally diagnosed (with the diagnosis registered in the Danish health register) are disregarded. What the study suggests is that boys who have undergone circumcision by a medical professional are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis at a young age. The authors interpret these findings as suggestive of a causal link between the potential pain experienced due to the circumcision and a risk for autism. An entirely different but in my view much more plausible explanation is as follows: Boys with symptoms of autism who undergo circumcision by a medical professional may have their symptoms recognised as autism more often, and at an earlier age, than boys who are not circumcised and who may therefore fly under the radar of medical professionals. In other words: the detection rate of autism (rather than the risk of autism per se) may be higher in boys seeing a medical professional for circumcision.”
"This study raises an interesting question, but one that cannot be fully answered with these data. The study is observational, and in such studies it’s always tricky to tell what causes what. The observed increase in risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in circumcised boys might be due to the circumcision, or it might not. Religions that prescribe circumcision prescribe other things too, such as diet or clothing. Perhaps differences in diet or clothing lead to the increased ASD risk, rather than the circumcision. Cultural and family differences may be crucial. The researchers try to deal with this issue in two ways, but in my view neither is completely satisfactory. They record ‘cultural background’ and allow for that in the analysis. But the fact that they label some families as ‘Muslim’ doesn’t mean that they are actually Muslim. It means that the boy in question had at least one parent or grandparent who was born in one of 17 predominantly Muslim countries. So the family may be Muslim, or it may not. The researchers don’t know which families are Muslim – they merely have a rough idea. There will be important differences between families that would be missed even if we did know exactly who was Muslim, but this vagueness makes things worse. The researchers tried to deal with these differences further by investigating whether the sisters of circumcised boys had an increased risk of ASD. The idea is that family influences should work in the same way in the sisters as in their circumcised brothers, so if the increased risk in the boys is due to something about their families, it should show up in the sisters too. But I think there are problems here too. First, it’s well known that girls and boys differ in ASD risk, so perhaps things just work differently in girls in relation to ASD. Then, they compared the sisters of circumcised boys with all other girls, not just those with an uncircumcised brother. Perhaps the mere fact of having a brother has some impact on ASD risk, so this may not be a fair comparison. They measured the risk of a having a circumcised brother as starting at the date of circumcision, whereas if it’s due to family circumstances, those are unlikely to change at the moment of circumcision. Finally, they did actually find an increased ASD risk in the sisters – the increase was not statistically significant, but ‘not statistically significant’ means that the increase might have been zero, not that the increase IS definitely zero. So including the girls does not get round the problems at all, in my view."
“I think this is an extremely speculative study that needs very careful handling in the popular media. The study is purely based on register data and takes a registered autism diagnosis at face value, without considering cultural or social factors affecting the likelihood of an (early) autism diagnosis. Even in a high income country like Denmark not all children with autism are detected and given a suitable autism diagnosis at an early age (the age under study in this paper). This study tries to implicate a link between ritual circumcision and the risk for autism. Important to note is the data used in the analyses: The authors linked autism diagnoses as recorded in the Danish public health system with whether boys had undergone circumcision in Danish hospitals or private clinics. Any boys undergoing circumcision outside the Danish medical system were left unaccounted for. Likewise, any children who may warrant an autism diagnosis but have not yet been formally diagnosed (with the diagnosis registered in the Danish health register) are disregarded. What the study suggests is that boys who have undergone circumcision by a medical professional are more likely to receive an autism diagnosis at a young age. The authors interpret these findings as suggestive of a causal link between the potential pain experienced due to the circumcision and a risk for autism. An entirely different but in my view much more plausible explanation is as follows: Boys with symptoms of autism who undergo circumcision by a medical professional may have their symptoms recognised as autism more often, and at an earlier age, than boys who are not circumcised and who may therefore fly under the radar of medical professionals. In other words: the detection rate of autism (rather than the risk of autism per se) may be higher in boys seeing a medical professional for circumcision.”
(Mind you, I'm against performing circumcision on children regardless, and think people should be able to decide for themselves if a circumcision is right for them once they're adults.)
TacticalFox88
Banned
Holy fuck.
My bullshit detectors haven't gone off so hard in quite some time.
My bullshit detectors haven't gone off so hard in quite some time.
There's a band that gets put around the foreskin to be removed. The foreskin loses circulation and falls off.
Walter White Walker
Member
I call shenanigans.
RobotChant
Member
I'm not saying this study is accurate, but comparing a normal birthing process to circumcision is ridiculous.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
Uhhh I'd rather have precision knives at work than cutting off circulation to my penis.
I'm still laughing at people going 'eh, they've been through one trauma. What can an additional trauma do?' Like that is quite possibly the stupidest fucking thing I've read today.
Cutting off circulation to your foreskin.
- Status