[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

File: 345 KB, 1x1, 1-s2.0-S1198743X16302683-main.pdf [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15770946 No.15770946 [Reply] [Original]

Is it reasonable to allow a group of 6 people, 4 jewish and 2 muslim, to publish scientific articles singing the praises of circumcision when they are all subject to strong religious motivations to promote genital mutilation?
Why is such an obviously biased piece of propaganda allowed to be published in the supposedly serious scientific press?
How come there are no authors from cultures which do not practice ritual religious genital mutilation?

>> No.15771106

>ctrl+F consent
>Phrase not found

>> No.15771811

Its like women writing papers about the importance of feminism

>> No.15771830

"Thirty-eight physicians from Europe have written a paper alleging that “cultural bias” was behind the pro-circumcision stance of the American Academy of Pediatrics."


>> No.15771836

The last few years have proven the scientific publishing apparatus to be largely fraudulent when any sort of conflicts in interest are involved. The fake HCQ papers in the Lancet alone are enough to not to care what these rags deem fit to publish.

>> No.15771935

Did you check if any of the authors have been "featured" in Retraction Watch?

>> No.15771955

the only thing they praise is it decreasing hiv transmission.
your country has to be big shithole in the first place if cutting of foreskins is the only way to slow the spread of hiv.

>> No.15771971

>Is it reasonable to allow
Yes. Banning publications based on authors' religion is extremely unreasonable. Now go back.

>> No.15772001

No it isn't. Failing to eliminate sources of biased information is whats unreasonable. Muslims and jews shouldn't be allowed to use the scientific press to promote their primitive third world genital mutilation rituals.

>> No.15772004

Should seventh day adventists be allowed to dictate nutritional policy?

>> No.15772013

considering they live way longer than most murrilards whose nutrition policy was decreed from kellogg et al, yes. unless the goal is death soon after retirement which it seems to be.

>> No.15772015

Boy there seems to be a lot of “cultural bias” in science these days

>> No.15772024

If your way to test the bias of a publication is going after the authors' religions/ethnicities, then you are a crappy reviewer. Attack the content or go back to /pol/.

>> No.15772080

mormons live just as long though?

>> No.15772116

Just arrest them for criminal conspiracy with the goal of children genital mutilation.
All laws needed for this already exist.

>> No.15772276

conflict of interest? oy vey what's that?
stop noticing things bigot

>> No.15773179

>Why is such an obviously biased piece of propaganda allowed to be published in the supposedly serious scientific press?
The science journals are all propaganda just like every other media source is. Who owns the journals? Who owns the mainstream media?

>> No.15773785
File: 217 KB, 231x191, qui.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15774822

Anyone else notice how the loudmouthed atheists are nowhere to be found when it comes time to notice and complain about religious bias thats non-Christian?

>> No.15774828

Christianity is a malignant tumor, all the other religions are like the common cold, even islam.

>> No.15774830

Because they declare conflicts of interest and with this paper you can sort of read between the lines anyway, even if no declaration was given

>> No.15774849

Not enough white people in other religions to bother attacking them maybe?

>> No.15775342

Indeed. Why not just chop off the dick entirely? I hypothesize that would drastically reduce HIV transmission

>> No.15775473

If they seriously cared about stopping the spread of HIV then they would be calling for faggots to be locked down to stop the spread.

>> No.15775488

There's now a push for it to reduce spread of HPV. I'm not shitting you, the excuse is that it reduces the amount of surface area to get infected. There's also a statement that ~90% of men and ~80% of men have had at least one strain within a certain age set, but there's no formal testing of HPV for men at all.

>> No.15775490

~80% of women

>> No.15776647

>it reduces the amount of surface area to get infected
by ppl who have never studied topology

>> No.15776669

How do you know the people criticising this paper in this very thread aren't atheists?

>> No.15777282

>There's now a push for it to reduce spread of HPV
if they really wanted to do that they would advise against casual sex, prosecute prostitution, ban birth control drugs and make abortion illegal. those four steps would do far more to stop HPV than genital mutilation does. we already have genital mutilation and HPV thriving together side by side, so genital mutilation clearly does not stop the spread of HPV

>> No.15777546

>the excuse is that it reduces the amount of surface area to get infected
Thats a dumb argument, it only means that a different part of the dick will get infected.

>> No.15777551

if they really wanted to do that, they would push for more vaccination against hpv.

>> No.15777760

Pretty much. Plus, it's been shown that it's caught completely asymptomatic even by skin to skin sexual contact and spreads over everything, even nuts. It would be like cutting off your finger because of a wart, but leaving the rest of the hand that still has warts.

>> No.15778590
File: 86 KB, 407x534, 420fantics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.15778881

>About half of the European physicians are from Scandinavian countries, where several political parties have stated their opposition to circumcision as a form of “child abuse,” or unwanted phenomenon of immigration by Muslims.
Their response is "yeah? well what about that time you-"