Post by Karl Aksel on Dec 14, 2017 7:28:34 GMT
Circumcision most certainly is scientific consensus. Those studies you mentioned were World Health Organization studies, and the World Health Organization is loudly and stridently in favor of circumcision.
That does not consensus make. The "findings" are by no means undisputed in the scientific community, and indeed without peer review scientific consensus cannot be claimed.
Circumcision is a great issue to distinguish between the so called pro-science people (who actually hate science and worship authority) and the so called science deniers (who recognize what garbage that science is). Because the fraud is so blatantly obvious in this case, it’s amusing that people will still refuse to recognize that and insist we take the WHO’s word for it. It parallels all arguments about science. “You’re not a climate scientist!”
The difference is that with climate change, there are peer reviewed studies, and lobbyists are typically found among dissenters. In the case of circumcision, there are only the lobbyists who are in favour of it.