Why is that? He shows a strong correlation and describes a plausible mechanism for the link.

His statement in the article seems very reasonable and prudent:

While the nay-sayer

is IMO ridiculous. No, the study is not conclusive. This would be a reasonable position if he were talking about something with large benefits like vaccines or something. Yes, the association could prove to be spurious, but who cares? Particularly because any minor benefits of circumcision are not accrued until after the risk of developing autism has passed.

You don't need conclusive answers to stop doing something that is ethically questionable, that is admitted by its proponents to have minor benefits, and could potentially have large unknown negatives.

Plausible? lol get back to your circumcision support group. Pure garbage and just embarrassing for you.

Did he really just link autism to circumcision?

Really?

Yes, the researchers showed a nearly 50% increase in autism in children who have been circumcised.

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Not sure why you're so reflexively dismissive of this, the authors of the study lay out a plausible mechanism for the link, and it was published in a reputable peer-reviewed medical journal.

just amazing. He really thinks that plausible.

The explanation doesn't matter as much as the observation. They found a correlation, can't explain it yet but one guy is speculating that it's the pain. Even if his particular speculation is wrong, and even if the notion of a causal link is strange, we can't automatically assume a causal link isn't present.

Personally I don't find his theory that outlandish, but I don't know psychology beyond intro level. I find it believable that so much pain at a such a young age could be traumatic. Toddlers cry from tiny amounts of pain. Babies cry from being a little hungry or whatever.

Isn't crying more about being the only method they have to express themselves than any specific indication of pain/trauma.

Total layperson here, but it seems like given it's ubiquity there's so many other factors you'd need to eliminate before jumping to circumcision.

I mean yeah, I'm not saying I'm sold on a causal link just because they found a correlation. But I think based on the data, we should be open to the possibility while more data is gathered. Not just laugh it off like Ikes and champ are doing.

We should be open to the possibility if there's a **** ton more data, and I am, but this study does dick to show that and is clear agenda based bs science. If you think there's some plausible possibility of autism being caused by circumcision there are no words for you.

Meanwhile, in non-idiotic science postings:

CDC agrees that circumcision benefits outweigh the risks.

A sample size of 340,000 seems like something not to sneeze at until more investigation is done and possible confounding variables are explored.

I am reminded of three things.

A story about a professional wrestler (maybe in the 1950s or 60s) who billed himself as the Jewish heavyweight champion and a reporter who determined that he wasn't after going to interview him and seeing him in the shower.

That episode of Married with Children when Al Bundy gets circumcised by accident and can't look at a magazine cover because Ross Perot's ears remind him of hooters.

The "intactivist" who was pushing the Foreskin Man comic book a few years ago.

The sample size isn't the issue. There's just no plausible mechanism to link the two conditions, so there's about 0% chance this is meaningful in any way.

Well the study doesn't actually posit that circumcision is, like, The Cause of autism. Rather, the hypothesis is that a potential risk factor is a painful, traumatic event as an infant. Then it uses circumcision, specifically ritual circumcision as a an example of such a painful event, and finds a significant increase in autism in children in the Netherlands who were circumcised.

Right it ignores how circumcision is normally done on top of the bs.

okay we're done here.

I'll help you out here Ikes.

QUESTION: Do you live in Africa (or other developing nations)?
IF YES: Circumcision may have enough benefits to outweigh the downsides
IF NO: Circumcision doesn't have enough benefits to outweigh the downsides

This is why the cdc, who doesn't even recommend telling parents to get circumcision, came up with these recommendations on the back of African studies.

To apply these African studies to America, or any other developed nation, is much more unsound than the Denmark autism study.

lol phill is claiming to have a better understanding of this than the CDC.

I made a point a few years ago about how liberals not denying AGW was not a function of them being enlightened, but a function of having their political views line up with the consequences. Phill here is a perfect example of that.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To the woman analyzing the guy's junk, it might have a big impact, yeah.

He is strongly anti-circumcision so he went through everything he could think of that is bad and tried to find a correlation. It is literally the worst kind of science you can do.

What the hell could these two things possibly have to do with one another? Makes zero sense. My wife is the director of an autistic children's school and tutors various types of developmentally disabled children on the side. She just laughed when I said this. How can something neurological in nature be affected by a piece of skin being cut off?

Pirates and global warming though.

I actually think that is a really disingenuous thing to publish by the CDC, but it isnt worth arguing, since the vast majority of both the benefits AND the risks are subjective.

The simple best counterargument I can give you is to simply ask, if no one had ever circumcised their kid, and someone decided, IRB-damned, that they were gonna do a RCT of 1000 kids and circumcize half of them, and their results were everything thats posted in the CDC position statement...

Do you think there is even a 1% chance that the CDC would go on record supporting the routine use of this new surgical option?