8) Brian J. Morris' email to his procircumcision friends (June 2011)

> Dear colleagues > > I wish to alert you to some serious anti-circ garbage just published in Int J Epidemiol by Frisch et al. (attached and url below) > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947 > > This large survey in Denmark by critics of circumcision finds 10 uncircumcised men with org^asm difficulties (11% vs 4% for circ'd vs uncirc'd). They also find women more often report pain and other problems during sex with circumcised men. > > They then use their data as a rallying call to WHO and other bodies to stop circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa for HIV prevention. > > The article attacks the RCT data on sexual function, sensation and satisfaction ... calling it "implausible". > > When you read the paper you will cringe ... it is very biased, with frequent citation of anti-circ publications that have been debunked. The first paragraph even denies infant MC for prevention of UTIs (citing van Howe of course!). It says 99% of phimosis is resolved by age 17, when data show 10% on average have phimosis at this age. It naturally cites the "cure for masturbation" idea from Victorian times, even though a proper study of the literature of the time shows that this was not generally accepted, even by those who thought masturbation should be discouraged. > > I was a Reviewer for the paper by Frisch et al. and recommended that it be rejected. My original review and review of the revised version are attached. > > I have had several email exchanges with the editorial office in the past couple of weeks enquiring about the outcome of this paper. Most of my questions have not been answered, including whether my reports were even shown to the authors. The Editor himself has not answered me. On the face of it this paper has avoided a serious peer-review and the editorial process seems to have been compromised. In my opinion, the Editor has some serious explaining to do. > > Only today did I find out that it had been published (by way of an email from Jack Travis, an anti-circ notable). > > Clearly Letters to the Editor of Int J Epidemiol are needed in abundance. > > Already the opponents of MC are using this publication to lobby for their cause. > > The AAP and CDC will be included as their targets, knowing that these bodies plan to come out with policy statements soon. > > So will WHO, UNAIDS and other bodies. > > I know this will mean work for you. But after a moment's thought you should realize how this needs to be given a very high priority over other jobs at present. > > Good luck! > > Regards > > Brian