- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Circumcision doubles risk for autism - link added MBD
Posted on 1/10/15 at 10:40 am to Upperaltiger06
Posted on 1/10/15 at 10:40 am to Upperaltiger06
The first line of the conclusion of your metaanalysis:
Is a much stronger statement than the original article linked, which says something along the lines "no firm conclusions can be drawn, there is now some evidence showing that ASD instance increases with exposure to traumatic events encountered in infancy."
The problem is that I don't buy that circumcision is painful in the very vast majority (upwards of 90%) of cases. There's a study that shows kids who got some analgesia were less likely to cry and increase heart rate and respiratory rate, leading to the recommendation that analgesia should be used. But those who received analgesia in the study (referenced by AAP in the link from your first study, somewhere in the 13-15th citation where they claim that it's unacceptable to perform circumcision without analgesia and give a note. Still on mobile. Will link if that's not descriptive enough) didn't experience any signs of pain. They didn't cry during the procedure. They didn't exhibit the normal physiologic response to pain. To now jump and say "even though they don't experience physiologic response to pain, I posit that moderate to extreme pain is likely the cause of this neurophysiological phenomenon we have no better explanation for" borders on absurd without so much as controlling for/looking at all ASD in those children who received vs didn't receive any analgesia at all during circumcision. Again, the number of pitfalls in this review 1) don't support your thread title. Even a little. 2) make their observation one that's worth little more than a passing "oh" to most
quote:
These data suggest that childhood/adolescent circumcision is protective against invasive penile cancer.
Is a much stronger statement than the original article linked, which says something along the lines "no firm conclusions can be drawn, there is now some evidence showing that ASD instance increases with exposure to traumatic events encountered in infancy."
The problem is that I don't buy that circumcision is painful in the very vast majority (upwards of 90%) of cases. There's a study that shows kids who got some analgesia were less likely to cry and increase heart rate and respiratory rate, leading to the recommendation that analgesia should be used. But those who received analgesia in the study (referenced by AAP in the link from your first study, somewhere in the 13-15th citation where they claim that it's unacceptable to perform circumcision without analgesia and give a note. Still on mobile. Will link if that's not descriptive enough) didn't experience any signs of pain. They didn't cry during the procedure. They didn't exhibit the normal physiologic response to pain. To now jump and say "even though they don't experience physiologic response to pain, I posit that moderate to extreme pain is likely the cause of this neurophysiological phenomenon we have no better explanation for" borders on absurd without so much as controlling for/looking at all ASD in those children who received vs didn't receive any analgesia at all during circumcision. Again, the number of pitfalls in this review 1) don't support your thread title. Even a little. 2) make their observation one that's worth little more than a passing "oh" to most
0
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News