jake Waskett Yes it is and yes they did. They specified RIC for a reason. And again, you still haven't made a point, Jake. Nothing was explained, Jake. Because you haven't explained anything, Jake. You latched onto the belief that "routine" somehow qualifies the findings of a link you posted. No, Jake, the original link stated something which I pointed out to you and you didn't like it. So you posted a second link that you believed would validate your ridiculous argument and it still hasn't worked. The point I posted here was the second of their recommendations. Clearly they felt it an important enough statement to recommend it. So why wasn't your post the explanatory letter link, rather than the first link to the study? Why is it you had to find a secondary source to use as evidence? No one understands what point your trying to make, Jake. It is relevant. On that site you've posted articles and interpretations that substantiate all your arguments. It's a clearing house of evidence for you, not an information database. Are you too stupid to understand that I'm not buying your stall tactics and selective articles, which do nothing but support your convoluted ideas? The average costs and costing is public, Jake. Since the research link you provided didn't specify each individual client, but rather over 14k members--so to speak--it is clear that they are public record, otherwise the study would not have been released to the public. That has nothing to do with this topic, Jake. All newborns receive sutures?; pain medication?; anesthetic? You're own link states only 45% of physicians use anesthesia, Jake. "RESULTS: ...and was medically indicated for 9.6% of uncircumcised males." If less than ten percent of the surgeries were medically indicated, than over 90% were done for purely cosmetic reasons. "Cost benefits of circumcision resulted from prevention of infant urinary tract infection, balanoposthitis, phimosis, HIV infection and penile cancer." No qualifiers, Jake. Yes. Since the paper didn't present which percentage of intact males would have been visited by these ailments, clearly they expect the reader to believe that all newborns were sparred. I'm having trouble with you pulling statements out of your butt that aren't attributable to me, or the link your provided. Stop going off on tangents and I won't deal with you as if you're a mental deficient. But they aren't referring to over 14k males who will become men. They are stating that ten years ago, these 14k males were cut and today, ten years later, they are free of these ailments. Nothing there about future projections, Jake How Many Here Are Jews 543It was a discussion of circumcision and I said that to be a Jew you MUST be circumcised at 8 days old. Sure... You've provided the links in previous posts. I suggest you look for them Yes it does. Don't present the study as a proper cost analysis, when it's merely and anecdotal study to convince clients to circ now, rather than later because it's cheaper for the insurance provider.
|
