Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Oh no!!!!! Even MORE, yes, MORE foreskin horrors!!!!! Foreskins increase the risk of prostate cancer!!!!! Ugh!
841 views
Skip to first unread message
windinghighway
Mar 12, 2012, 11:05:03 AM3/12/12
to
Dozens of scientific reports have been posted here over the years,
proving the pathogenic nature of foreskins and the dire threat they
pose to public health. Here's yet ANOTHER research study, showing
this time how circumcision reduces the risk of that killer disease,
prostate cancer.
______________________________
Circumcision Cuts Prostate Cancer Risk
Scientific American
By Katherine Harmon | March 12, 2012 | 4
Circumcision might reduce a man’s risk of developing prostate cancer
by 15 percent, according to new research published online March 12 in
Cancer.
Of 1,754 men surveyed who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer,
fewer—percentage-wise—had been circumcised than the 1,645 men who did
not have prostate cancer. Men with more aggressive forms of prostate
cancer were even more likely to be uncircumcised. Most men were 55 or
older; to be protective against cancer risk, they had to have been
circumcised before they first had sex.
The timing is important, the researchers suggest, because sexually
transmitted infections might play a key role in making later cancer
development more likely. Previous research showed that men who had any
sexually transmitted infection were at a higher risk for prostate
cancer.
Male circumcision has already been shown to reduce the risk of HIV
infection as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. But the new
correlation does not suggest that prostate cancer is necessarily
caused directly by a viral infection, in the way penile and anal
cancers have been linked to the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can
be transmitted during various sexual activities. (Earlier research has
pointed to a retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related
virus, or XMRV, as a possible link for some aggressive cases.) Instead
the infection can start a chain reaction that increases the odds of
cancer. An underlying infection often leads to chronic inflammation in
the body which in turn creates a more welcoming environment for cancer
cells.
Circumcision nips this cycle in the bud in several ways. Foreskin is
prone to small tears, which can allow viruses and bacteria to enter
the body. This tissue also can harbor infectious strains that can get
into the body later. Finally, after circumcision, the tissue in the
circumcised area becomes tougher and less prone to damage and
microscopic hangers-on.
The pattern suggests “a biologically plausible mechanism through which
circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer,” Jonathan
Wright of the University of Washington School of Medicine and co-
author of the study said in a prepared statement. And the new data
point to the need for further study. In the meantime, other risks have
already been established, such as older age and family history. All
these factors can help a doctor and patient best decide about
screening via PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood tests, a step the
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force last year recommended against as
standard procedure for healthy men.
proving the pathogenic nature of foreskins and the dire threat they
pose to public health. Here's yet ANOTHER research study, showing
this time how circumcision reduces the risk of that killer disease,
prostate cancer.
______________________________
Circumcision Cuts Prostate Cancer Risk
Scientific American
By Katherine Harmon | March 12, 2012 | 4
Circumcision might reduce a man’s risk of developing prostate cancer
by 15 percent, according to new research published online March 12 in
Cancer.
Of 1,754 men surveyed who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer,
fewer—percentage-wise—had been circumcised than the 1,645 men who did
not have prostate cancer. Men with more aggressive forms of prostate
cancer were even more likely to be uncircumcised. Most men were 55 or
older; to be protective against cancer risk, they had to have been
circumcised before they first had sex.
The timing is important, the researchers suggest, because sexually
transmitted infections might play a key role in making later cancer
development more likely. Previous research showed that men who had any
sexually transmitted infection were at a higher risk for prostate
cancer.
Male circumcision has already been shown to reduce the risk of HIV
infection as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. But the new
correlation does not suggest that prostate cancer is necessarily
caused directly by a viral infection, in the way penile and anal
cancers have been linked to the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can
be transmitted during various sexual activities. (Earlier research has
pointed to a retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related
virus, or XMRV, as a possible link for some aggressive cases.) Instead
the infection can start a chain reaction that increases the odds of
cancer. An underlying infection often leads to chronic inflammation in
the body which in turn creates a more welcoming environment for cancer
cells.
Circumcision nips this cycle in the bud in several ways. Foreskin is
prone to small tears, which can allow viruses and bacteria to enter
the body. This tissue also can harbor infectious strains that can get
into the body later. Finally, after circumcision, the tissue in the
circumcised area becomes tougher and less prone to damage and
microscopic hangers-on.
The pattern suggests “a biologically plausible mechanism through which
circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer,” Jonathan
Wright of the University of Washington School of Medicine and co-
author of the study said in a prepared statement. And the new data
point to the need for further study. In the meantime, other risks have
already been established, such as older age and family history. All
these factors can help a doctor and patient best decide about
screening via PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood tests, a step the
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force last year recommended against as
standard procedure for healthy men.
Mike Burke
Mar 14, 2012, 8:23:12 AM3/14/12
to
I was circumcised the day after I was born, and i'm very glad that my
parents paid for it. Not only is foreskin very unhealthy, uncut penises
are also very ugly.
--
Mike Burke
parents paid for it. Not only is foreskin very unhealthy, uncut penises
are also very ugly.
--
Mike Burke
em...@dtnspeed.net
May 31, 2012, 1:36:33 PM5/31/12
to
I unfortunately was not circumcised when I was born, hated me foreskin from the time that I learned my friend kept his foreskin pulled back all the time. I loved the look and feel of having my foreskin pulled back. Ask why his stayed back all the time and we could not get it back over his head. Mother told me that he had it cut off when he was born and that it was call circumcision. From that day on I wanted to be just like him and be circumcised. Parents would not do it for me, so when I was in college, I had myself properly circumcised and it was the best day of my life.
So for what ever reason they come up with to circumcise babies,boys or men, I think it is a very good idea. I have never missed my foreskin and am so glad that it is finally gone and guess what "it will never grow back". Should have been snipped off when I was born. It just looks and feels better without it. I think all should be done as soon as they are born. It has been done thousands of years and now they are thinking that the first inhabits that migrated from Africa to the middle east were circumcision way back then. If it sure a bad idea, why would it still be done today.
So for what ever reason they come up with to circumcise babies,boys or men, I think it is a very good idea. I have never missed my foreskin and am so glad that it is finally gone and guess what "it will never grow back". Should have been snipped off when I was born. It just looks and feels better without it. I think all should be done as soon as they are born. It has been done thousands of years and now they are thinking that the first inhabits that migrated from Africa to the middle east were circumcision way back then. If it sure a bad idea, why would it still be done today.
trent T
Jul 26, 2012, 4:56:37 PM7/26/12
to
On Monday, March 12, 2012 11:05:03 AM UTC-4, windinghighway wrote:
> Dozens of scientific reports have been posted here over the years,
> proving the pathogenic nature of foreskins and the dire threat they
> pose to public health. Here's yet ANOTHER research study, showing
> Dozens of scientific reports have been posted here over the years,
> proving the pathogenic nature of foreskins and the dire threat they
migue...@yahoo.ca
Jul 28, 2012, 5:25:51 AM7/28/12
to
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:36:33 PM UTC-4, (unknown) wrote:
> I unfortunately was not circumcised when I was born, hated me foreskin from the time that I learned my friend kept his foreskin pulled back all the time. I loved the look and feel of having my foreskin pulled back. Ask why his stayed back all the time and we could not get it back over his head. Mother told me that he had it cut off when he was born and that it was call circumcision. From that day on I wanted to be just like him and be circumcised. Parents would not do it for me, so when I was in college, I had myself properly circumcised and it was the best day of my life.
>
> So for what ever reason they come up with to circumcise babies,boys or men, I think it is a very good idea. I have never missed my foreskin and am so glad that it is finally gone and guess what "it will never grow back". Should have been snipped off when I was born. It just looks and feels better without it. I think all should be done as soon as they are born. It has been done thousands of years and now they are thinking that the first inhabits that migrated from Africa to the middle east were circumcision way back then. If it sure a bad idea, why would it still be done today.
My father is uncircumcised because in his country that is the tradition. He came to the USA and decided that me and my two brothers should get it done. In was in the hospital when we were born. Our cousins are uncut and one cousin told me they wish they were cut too. Most immigrant kids are uncut because their parents do not accept new ideas.
> I unfortunately was not circumcised when I was born, hated me foreskin from the time that I learned my friend kept his foreskin pulled back all the time. I loved the look and feel of having my foreskin pulled back. Ask why his stayed back all the time and we could not get it back over his head. Mother told me that he had it cut off when he was born and that it was call circumcision. From that day on I wanted to be just like him and be circumcised. Parents would not do it for me, so when I was in college, I had myself properly circumcised and it was the best day of my life.
>
> So for what ever reason they come up with to circumcise babies,boys or men, I think it is a very good idea. I have never missed my foreskin and am so glad that it is finally gone and guess what "it will never grow back". Should have been snipped off when I was born. It just looks and feels better without it. I think all should be done as soon as they are born. It has been done thousands of years and now they are thinking that the first inhabits that migrated from Africa to the middle east were circumcision way back then. If it sure a bad idea, why would it still be done today.
Orlando
Aug 10, 2012, 12:39:09 PM8/10/12
to
On Monday, 12 March 2012 11:05:03 UTC-4, windinghighway wrote:
> Dozens of scientific reports have been posted here over the years, proving the pathogenic nature of foreskins and the dire threat they pose to public health. Here's yet ANOTHER research study, showing this time how circumcision reduces the risk of that killer disease, prostate cancer. ______________________________ Circumcision Cuts Prostate Cancer Risk Scientific American By Katherine Harmon | March 12, 2012 | 4 Circumcision might reduce a man’s risk of developing prostate cancer by 15 percent, according to new research published online March 12 in Cancer. Of 1,754 men surveyed who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer—percentage-wise—had been circumcised than the 1,645 men who did not have prostate cancer. Men with more aggressive forms of prostate cancer were even more likely to be uncircumcised. Most men were 55 or older; to be protective against cancer risk, they had to have been circumcised before they first had sex. The timing is important, the researchers suggest, because sexually transmitted infections might play a key role in making later cancer development more likely. Previous research showed that men who had any sexually transmitted infection were at a higher risk for prostate cancer. Male circumcision has already been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. But the new correlation does not suggest that prostate cancer is necessarily caused directly by a viral infection, in the way penile and anal cancers have been linked to the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can be transmitted during various sexual activities. (Earlier research has pointed to a retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, or XMRV, as a possible link for some aggressive cases.) Instead the infection can start a chain reaction that increases the odds of cancer. An underlying infection often leads to chronic inflammation in the body which in turn creates a more welcoming environment for cancer cells. Circumcision nips this cycle in the bud in several ways. Foreskin is prone to small tears, which can allow viruses and bacteria to enter the body. This tissue also can harbor infectious strains that can get into the body later. Finally, after circumcision, the tissue in the circumcised area becomes tougher and less prone to damage and microscopic hangers-on. The pattern suggests “a biologically plausible mechanism through which circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer,” Jonathan Wright of the University of Washington School of Medicine and co- author of the study said in a prepared statement. And the new data point to the need for further study. In the meantime, other risks have already been established, such as older age and family history. All these factors can help a doctor and patient best decide about screening via PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood tests, a step the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force last year recommended against as standard procedure for healthy men.
You sure do like to hear ourself talk don't you. Maybe you should change your name to winding wind bag
> Dozens of scientific reports have been posted here over the years, proving the pathogenic nature of foreskins and the dire threat they pose to public health. Here's yet ANOTHER research study, showing this time how circumcision reduces the risk of that killer disease, prostate cancer. ______________________________ Circumcision Cuts Prostate Cancer Risk Scientific American By Katherine Harmon | March 12, 2012 | 4 Circumcision might reduce a man’s risk of developing prostate cancer by 15 percent, according to new research published online March 12 in Cancer. Of 1,754 men surveyed who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, fewer—percentage-wise—had been circumcised than the 1,645 men who did not have prostate cancer. Men with more aggressive forms of prostate cancer were even more likely to be uncircumcised. Most men were 55 or older; to be protective against cancer risk, they had to have been circumcised before they first had sex. The timing is important, the researchers suggest, because sexually transmitted infections might play a key role in making later cancer development more likely. Previous research showed that men who had any sexually transmitted infection were at a higher risk for prostate cancer. Male circumcision has already been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection as well as other sexually transmitted diseases. But the new correlation does not suggest that prostate cancer is necessarily caused directly by a viral infection, in the way penile and anal cancers have been linked to the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can be transmitted during various sexual activities. (Earlier research has pointed to a retrovirus, xenotropic murine leukemia virus-related virus, or XMRV, as a possible link for some aggressive cases.) Instead the infection can start a chain reaction that increases the odds of cancer. An underlying infection often leads to chronic inflammation in the body which in turn creates a more welcoming environment for cancer cells. Circumcision nips this cycle in the bud in several ways. Foreskin is prone to small tears, which can allow viruses and bacteria to enter the body. This tissue also can harbor infectious strains that can get into the body later. Finally, after circumcision, the tissue in the circumcised area becomes tougher and less prone to damage and microscopic hangers-on. The pattern suggests “a biologically plausible mechanism through which circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer,” Jonathan Wright of the University of Washington School of Medicine and co- author of the study said in a prepared statement. And the new data point to the need for further study. In the meantime, other risks have already been established, such as older age and family history. All these factors can help a doctor and patient best decide about screening via PSA (prostate-specific antigen) blood tests, a step the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force last year recommended against as standard procedure for healthy men.
0 new messages