tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post618480153407132569..comments2024-01-17T13:16:10.378-08:00Comments on Joseph4GI: NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies HerpesJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-14772940567896201912013-04-11T17:42:35.813-07:002013-04-11T17:42:35.813-07:00The link is to the webpage of University of Pennsy...The link is to the webpage of University of Pennsylvania's Center for Evidence-based Practice:<br />http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/cep/index.html<br /><br />Where is this study published? If it is a consulting report, it's not worth the paper it is printed on. If Agudath Israel in any way paid for this study, that fact has to be disclosed on the report.RDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05120095550637873753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-23977131804105472652013-04-11T10:45:40.995-07:002013-04-11T10:45:40.995-07:00Do they ever mention where this "study" ...Do they ever mention where this "study" can be found. That would be illuminating. My guess is that they determine that you cannot establish air tight "causality" from a number or case reports. The big reason for this is that the numbers of boys who have gotten herpes from the mohel is small. It is hard to show "causality" with small numbers. But we reach conclusions with small numbers all the time. When someone is accused of murder we look at evidence to support that particular case. So for these infections we know mom was not infected (mothers with active genital herpes infections undergo Cesarean sections to keep the baby from being exposed to their mother's herpes lesions). The infecting strains are HSV type 1, which is more common in the mouth (genital herpes is usually HSV type 2, but there is some crossover). So the only way rational way, and the best explanation, for these infections to have occurred is from oral genital contact with an infected mohel. I suppose other explanations exists (such as alien abductions), but the known facts support these infections were transmitted during the circumcision.<br /><br />The logical fallacy used by these circumcision proponents is that it is impossible to prove the negative. While they say that this negative "study" fails to demonstrate that the link is strong enough to prove causality, the failure to find a link in a study does not mean the link does not exist. I have never personally met President Obama, but that does not mean that President Obama does not exist. My sampling of people of people is too small. I do know several people who have met President Obama, and one who went to law school with him, so this evidence is supportive of his existence. Also small studies, because of their size will miss things that are really there. The likelihood of a study finding an association if such an association truly exists, can be estimated. The larger the study, the more likely the association will be demonstrated. Also there is also a likelihood that associations will be found when no such association exists. For example, you can flip a coin and get heads six times in a row. This does not mean that coin is defective.<br /><br />I think they are being coy about the location of this "study" for fear that someone will actually read it.<br /><br />Finally, there were major concerns from the late 1800s early 1900s about religious circumcision resulting in infections with tuberculosis, syphilis, and diphtheria from oral genital contact. These are well established in the medical literature of the time. So the "no concerns" defense is pure sophistry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-8708789923434272762013-04-10T21:32:11.075-07:002013-04-10T21:32:11.075-07:00perfect picture to go along with this storyperfect picture to go along with this storyKevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13275749220075859943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-33610102414416011232013-04-10T17:36:11.147-07:002013-04-10T17:36:11.147-07:00Warren Jeffs leads a cult that rapes girls and you...Warren Jeffs leads a cult that rapes girls and young women, and he and his followers get arrested. Yet, these mohelim rape infant boys and no one cares in the slightest. Because let's not delude ourselves, forced oral sex (mouth to penis) is rape. The FBI rape definition supports this statement. That we allow this to happen without punishment of the law is atrocious and despicable. And don't get me started the mutilation that it entails first.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18325126761617252972noreply@blogger.com