I already posted the link at least 3 times in this thread. Go back and read post 451. Penguin posted a link which has 3 studies in it that show a 10 fold or more increase in urinary tract infection for uncircumcised males compared to circumcised males. Then when you are done reading pengiuns link read the link i posted.
You might want to read it again. It said:
- ritual circumcision at an early age is associated with a very large spike in UTI rates (e.g. in the study they mention, 48% - or nearly half - of the boys who were ritually circumcised at 8 days of age were found to have a UTI within the next few weeks, as opposed to very low rates for girls and uncircumcised boys). The infection rate drops off to normal levels within a month, indicating that it is the circumcision itself that's causing these increases in UTI rates. The researchers weren't sure whether this is caused by the timing or the method of circumcision.
- in the first year of life, uncircumcised boys have a somewhat higher incidence of UTI than circumcised boys. The report authors talk at length about the possible causes of this higher incidence and suggest strategies that may be effective at reducing it that don't involve circumcision.
- beyond this, the report doesn't present any clear indication of the difference in infection rates between circumcised and non-circumcised males.
When considering the relative risk of UTI vs. the relative risk of circumcision, researchers found that the least risky course of action was not to circumcise:
Thompson
21 interpreted the published data by considering a hypothetical cohort of 2000 newborn male infants, half of whom were circumcised and half of whom were not. Given an incidence of UTI of 0.1% in the circumcised boys and of 1.0% in the uncircumcised ones during the first year of life, he calculated that there would be nine more UTIs for every 1000 newborns who were not circumcised. Thus, 99.9% of the circumcised infants would not experience a UTI, whereas 99.0% of the uncircumcised group would not have a UTI.
Given a complication rate of 0.2%,91 Thompson estimated that, whereas 9 boys out of 1000 circumcised would benefit from circumcision, 12 would have moderately severe complications. At a complication rate of 4.0%, 41 boys would have moderately severe or worse complications. He concluded that the potential benefit to 9 in 1000 boys would be more than offset by the rate of moderately severe or worse complications, even if this rate was as low as 0.2%.
As noted elsewhere in the article, the actual rate of complications due to circumcision is estimated to be between 2% and 10% (though I recognize that not all of these would qualify as "moderately severe or worse").
95% of males are not uncircumcised. You might want to actually look up the statistics before you post stuff. If you have a source that says 95% of males are uncircumcised i would like to see it.
There were 2 studies done in the u.s. over 5 years and they kept track of every male infant admitted into the hospital for urinary tract infections. Of all the male infants admitted into the hospital for urinary tract infection 95% of them were uncircumcised.
Just so you know 95% of male infants in the u.s. are not uncircumcised and i challenge you to find a legit source that says they are.
The article I linked to is Canadian. Doctors here haven't done routine circumcision for decades, so the percentage of the population who is uncircumcised is much higher here than in the US.
Based on a quick Googling, it looks like rates vary a bit by province, but the national average is that about 9% of Canadian boys are circumcised, and the lowest rate I could find was in Nova Scotia, where only 1.1% of boys are circumcised.
