RSS Feed
March 12th, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda MONDAY, March 12 (HealthDay News) — Men who have prostate cancer
are less likely to be circumcised, according to new research.
The researchers suggest a possible reason is that circumcision reduces
the risk of sexually transmitted diseases that may contribute to prostate
tumors.
The study doesn’t confirm that circumcision directly lowers the risk of
prostate cancer, and the study lead author cautioned that the findings
shouldn’t play a role in the decisions of parents about the
sometimes-controversial procedure.
Still, the results fit in with existing knowledge about how cancer
develops, said study author Dr. Jonathan Wright, a urologic oncologist at
the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center at the University of Washington
in Seattle.
“It helps us to understand how cancers develop and ultimately learn how
to combat the disease,” he said.
Circumcision is the removal of the foreskin that covers the penis tip,
and it is usually done shortly after birth. Opponents say the procedure is
unnecessary, painful and a disfigurement that robs men of sexual
sensation. But research in recent years has suggested that circumcision
reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, the virus that
causes AIDS. Scientists think circumcision does that by eliminating the
ability of germs to lurk under the foreskin.
Previous research by the study authors found no link between
circumcision and lower risk of prostate cancer. But the new study is
larger, Wright explained.
The researchers examined medical records and surveys of 1,754 men who
were diagnosed with prostate cancer in the Seattle area and 1,645 similar
men who were healthy.
Of those with prostate cancer, about 65 percent had been circumcised
before the first time they had intercourse, compared with 69 percent of
the healthy men.
Those with prostate cancer were still less likely to have been
circumcised after the researchers adjusted their statistics so they
wouldn’t be thrown off by factors like high or low numbers of men of
certain incomes, education levels or race.
However, the study doesn’t prove that circumcision has anything to do
with prostate cancer. Some other factor could explain this difference
between the men with prostate cancer and the healthy ones, or it could be
a statistical fluke.
But it makes sense that germs from sexually transmitted diseases would
find it easier to get into the body, and then into the prostate, in the
uncircumcised men, Wright said. It’s possible that “they set up shop in
the prostate and turn on inflammation, and then the inflammation leads to
cancer development,” he said.
Research has linked infections to some kinds of cancer, he
explained.
Brian Morris, a professor of molecular medical sciences at Australia’s
University of Sydney who studies circumcision, praised the study’s design
and said it “provides even more reason for parents to opt for this
‘surgical vaccine.'” Circumcision protects baby boys from urinary
infections that can damage their kidneys as well as other diseases over
their lifetimes, he said.
Natasha Larke, a lecturer in epidemiology and medical statistics at the
London School of Hygiene Tropical Medicine who has studied
circumcision, said the study was well done, although there were
limitations. For one, the study didn’t include all prostate cancer
patients in the Seattle region, she said. And even if a possible effect of
circumcision is confirmed, it appears to be “modest,” Larke added.
The study was published March 12 in the journal Cancer.
While the study found an association between circumcision and lower
risk of prostate cancer, it did not prove a cause-and-effect
relationship.
More information:
For more about prostate cancer, try the U.S. National Library of
Medicine.
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
