Baby

Does Circumcision Cause Autism?

Danish study reports circumcised boys at 50 percent greater risk of autism.

|

CircumcisionBanana
healthy living

In January, some Scandinavian medical societies recommended that circumcision of male infants and young boys be banned. Some Scandinavian news reports have characterized the procedure as unconsented "mutilation."

Now a study in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine by Danish researchers find that circumcised boys are about 50 percent more likely to suffer from autism spectrum disorders (ASD) than their uncircumcised brethren. The researchers conclude:

We confirmed our hypothesis that boys who undergo ritual circumcision may run a greater risk of developing ASD. This finding, and the unexpected observation of an increased risk of hyperactivity disorder among circumcised boys in non-Muslim families, need attention, particularly because data limitations most likely rendered our HR estimates conservative. Considering the widespread practice of non-therapeutic circumcision in infancy and childhood around the world, confirmatory studies should be given priority.

Interestingly, another Scandinavian study found that autism rates are higher among lower income families (this contrasts with the prevalence of diagnoses in the U.S. that increase with income). Considering how often health outcomes correlate with income, it is troubling that the new study apparently did not look at the parents' socioeconomic status.

Although Danish government demographers do not gather information on the religious backgrounds of citizens and residents, the researchers suggest that most of the circumcised boys in the study are highly likely to be from Muslim background families. This could confound their findings since other research reports that Muslims in Denmark earn less on average and are more likely to be unemployed.

In contrast to the Scandinavians, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2012 favoring circumcision for newborns. From the statement:

Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure's benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

It is worth noting that that ASD diagnoses in the U.S. have been going up even as the circumcision rate has been falling.

Advertisement

NEXT: St. Louis Cops Stop Beating Up Man to Turn Off Dashcam Recording Them, Lawsuit Claims

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Only if state medical workers forcibly inject the vaccine directly into the foreskin first.

    1. Hahahahahaah, that was the joke I was going to make.

    2. The studies prove it.

  2. Okay, I blacked out with the banana pic. For those that read it, is this a correlation study, or did they establish causation?

    1. Pure correlation, as far as I can tell.

    2. As Bailey points out, this study has a serious problem since circumcised people in Denmark are overwhelmingly Muslim.

      They therefore may have just found a correlation between Danish Muslims and autism rather than a correlation between circumcision and autism.

      1. ISLAM CAUSES AUTISM!

        1. AUTISM CAUSES ISLAMIC CIRCUMCISION!!!

          Wait…

          1. AUTISTIC ISLAMISTS CIRCUMCISE PEOPLE’S HEADS!!!

            if ya know what I’m sayin’

            1. Gotta’ get rid of those neck folds somehow.

              1. “Mama so fat, back of her neck look like a pack o’ HOT DOGS.” – Jamie Fox, “In Living Color”

      2. This study talks at length about how they tried to address this, and as their conclusions state, the correlation was “regardless of cultural background”:

        “With a total of 4986 ASD cases, our study showed that regardless of cultural background circumcised boys were more likely than intact boys to develop ASD before age 10 years (HR=1.46; 95% CI: 1.11?1.93). Risk was particularly high for infantile autism before age five years (HR=2.06; 95% CI: 1.36?3.13). Circumcised boys in non-Muslim families were also more likely to develop hyperkinetic disorder (HR=1.81; 95% CI: 1.11?2.96).”

        The other study which found statistically significant correlations between circumcision and autism/ASD looked at nine countries:

        “For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n = 9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country’s circumcision rate (r = 0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. The country-level correlation between autism/ASD prevalence in males and paracetamol was considerably weaker before 1995 when the drug became widely used during circumcision.”

    3. Confirmation bias study.

      1. Confirmation bias only counts when you are expressing skepticism of CAGW.

      2. Was the other study showing significant correlations between infant circ and autism/ASD a “confirmation bias study” too? Have you actually read either of them? I’ve linked to them both in another comment.

  3. Some Scandinavian news reports have characterized the procedure as unconsented “mutilation.”

    Objectively speaking, if not mutilation, what would you call it?

      1. Not a “rat rod”?

        1. Nah. Rat rods are rusty. I keep mine polished up.

    1. Modification?

    2. Objectively speaking, if not mutilation, what would you call it?

      Objectively speaking, if you knew the definition of mutilation you would realize you aren’t speaking objectively.

      Is there some sanctimonious purity of the natural penis you seek to preserve at all costs?

      1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts

        What part of this doesn’t apply to circumcision?

        1. It’s making the cock perfect. God said so.

          1. The cock won’t be perfect until it can fire missiles, fly under its own power and trigger the Tunguska Event.

            1. Wait, I thought everyone’s dick could trigger the Tunguska Event…

              My dick suddenly feels so alone.

        2. What part of this doesn’t apply to circumcision?

          I said they don’t apply objectively.

          Possibly, he meant “to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts” but considering the conditions of violence that include plenty of definitions of mutilation, the term is hardly more apt relative to a term like modification that doesn’t carry such implications and subjective ideas.

          Moreover, ‘some Scandinavian news reports’ made assertions of ‘mutilation’ agreeing or disagreeing is a wholly subjective decision.

          1. the conditions of violence that include plenty of definitions of mutilation

            What does that mean? Do you mean “the definitions of mutilation that include conditions of violence”? If so, would you like to provide one?

            Also, there is such a thing as disjunctive “or,” so there’s no reason behind your crossing out of part of the definition SF gave. If it’s injured by removing a part, it’s mutilated, according to the full definition.

            1. And while disfigure is subjective, the cut penis and uncut penis are significantly different looking.

            2. If so, would you like to provide one?

              http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mutilate – inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on

              Mirriam Webster among others contain language like; “to ruin the beauty of”.

              Did they clearly notify it’s a disjunctive ‘or’ or would that, again, be a judgement call? Would it help if I said, “Objectively, they used a lot of meaningless extra words to say ‘remove’.”

              1. So if I held you down and sliced off your foreskin it wouldn’t be a violent act?

                1. Not if you do it orthodox jew style… with your teeth.

                  1. Not if you do it orthodox jew style… with your teeth.

                    Hat tip Pl?ya Manhattan.

                    Baby, I didn’t get herpes being a slut, it was the mohel!

                2. So if I held you down and sliced off your foreskin it wouldn’t be a violent act?

                  Are you charged with my care? Are you obligated to feed, house and clothe me? And clean my pants when I shit myself? If I plot and execute your murder can I get off scot-free as a protected legal class who doesn’t know right from wrong?

                  Or are you comparing apples to bobcats?

                  Might as well be screaming don’t circumcise, FOR THE CHILDREN!

              2. Would it help if I said, “Objectively, they used a lot of meaningless extra words to say ‘remove’.”

                No, that would be inaccurate, because the whole point is that fulfilling any of the three parts of the definition is fulfilling the definition.

                Pretending not to speak English isn’t cute; it’s annoying.

                1. Pretending not to speak English isn’t cute; it’s annoying.

                  Pretending formal grammar and natural language are one and the same is pretty annoying too.

                  As is fitting the narrowest possible interpretation of a singular definition and declaring the term, any interpretation, apt or any person who disagrees with you based on your singular and narrow definition to be wrong.

                  I’m sure you prosecute 12 yr. old child pornographers to similar letters of the law, right?

        3. Why do you posit that circumcision “injures, disfigures, or makes imperfect”? Why do you assume that the “natural state” is perfect? Does operating on someone with a cleft pallet qualify as mutilation? What about separating a pair of conjoined twins? Is piercing one’s ears mutilation? What about African Disk Lips? Your simplistic definition of mutilation is the problem. Grow up, judgmental whore.

          1. Surgically altering a child for aesthetic preferences and to repair congenital defects MIGHT be construed as different things, Mr. Falcon, just saying…

            1. SHUT UP YOU JUDGMENTAL FUCK FUCKING FUCK YOU GROW UP I’LL KILL YOU LEARN TO THINK FUCK YOU DIPSHIT FUCKFACE ASSSHIT FUCK

            2. Look, jesse, it’s absurd on its face to think it might cause autism, therefore it’s FINESIES so stop being a troll.

              1. It’s not even necessarily absurd on its face to think it might cause autism. Worth researching? Debatable, but that’s not what this “study” did. They threw out a large portion of data before they started, and then threw out more to reach a pre-determined conclusion. You can be against circumcision (I’m not, and neither is anyone acquainted with the perfection of my circumcised phallus), but this study does not undergird that position.

              2. This is the second peer-reviewed study to find a correlation between infant circumcision and autism/ASD, and two mechanisms have been proposed, so why is it “absurd”?

                1. You’re wasting your time arguing with the Science is a Waste of Time brigade here.

                2. This is the second peer-reviewed study to find a correlation between infant circumcision and autism/ASD, and two mechanisms have been proposed, so why is it “absurd”?

                  Because there are a host of studies with developmental detection *and causal mechanism* established in utero.

                  Because there are legion of normally circumcised men (for generations!) who avoided autism through no conscious act of their own.

                  But mostly because Ron’s title and article are pretty, in name or spirit, “trolling” (gouging big holes in the conclusions and pointing out near-inept levels of bias), but you not only support the research zealously, you portray it as urgent without need.

            3. I like my cock without the disgusting sleeve.

              1. So your cosmetic preference is your real reason for dismissing this study?

                1. That, and the fact that they don’t want to think that maybe they did something nasty to their kids or their parents did something nasty to them.

                  1. That, and the fact that they don’t want to think that maybe they did something nasty to their kids or their parents did something nasty to them.

                    The majority of nasty things parents do to their children, was done to them by their own parents and their parents parents and so on going all the way back to the nest of mammalian shrews eating the runts of their litter.

                    1. You’re the mammalian shrew!

                  2. That, and the fact that they don’t want to think that maybe they did something nasty to their kids or their parents did something nasty to them.

                    I’m a libertarian Dad. I know for a fact that nasty stuff will be perpetrated on my kids by my great grandparents through me.

                    Circumcision is among the most inconsequential/trivial unless you cling to puritan notions naughty bits (one way or the other) or noble-savage type illusions where kids and their penises are perfect until their parents mess everything up.

                    My sons routinely injure themselves and we routinely offer the option to avoid medical intervention when reasonable. That being the case, I’m certain we’ve forced unnecessary medical intervention on them against their will.

                    I’ve lived with a circumcised penis, a public education, and federal taxes, etc. Guess where I prioritize my missing foreskin?

                    IMO, it’s like laws to protect/research to understand homosexuals or homophobes; all the good research must be done and we’ve solved all the really hard legal issues and we’re left with circumcision.

          2. Does operating on someone with a cleft pallet qualify as mutilation?

            That’s a medical procedure done for medical reasons. You’re not supposing that mutilation is a synonym for medical procedures are you?

            What about separating a pair of conjoined twins?

            Medical procedure.

            Is piercing one’s ears mutilation?

            Mutilation but not necessarily a bad thing. Self-mutilation is ethically neutral, inflicting it on others involuntarily, especially children over whom you are a trustee for their free will, is not ethically neutral.

            What about African Disk Lips?

            See above.

  4. I have no words. I will look at the comments later though.

  5. Ronald! You trolling m-f’er!

    1. Yeah, he is going for a Richmanesque comment count, hmmmm?

      1. You know it

  6. Correlation does not equal causation. How in the hell could circumcision cause autism? Does the study even attempt to explain this?

    How about this suggestion; since it is debatable weather there is even such a thing as Autism, Autism is often way over diagnosed and it is probably the case that the people who circumcise their male children are the ones most likely to have the condition diagnosed. How about that?

    Come on Ron, you don’t think this study means anything other than what I just wrote above do you?

    1. “Correlation does not equal causation. How in the hell could circumcision cause autism? Does the study even attempt to explain this?”

      I know, it’s completely idiotic. There’s no conceivable causal link between these two things and the study is especially pointless because one ethnic group in Denmark makes up such a high percentage of circumcised people.

      There therefore might just be something about Muslims in Denmark that results in higher rates of autism (lack of medical care, cultural practices, etc).

      1. Maybe the cheese is an anti-dote to autism? I dipped mine in artisanal Gorganzola last night. Completely stopped my rampant autism.

        1. I do not know if your prescription is correct or not BUT I AM GOING TO ADHERE TO IT!!!

          mmmm….cheese.

        2. Completely stopped my rampant autism.

          That’s what you think.

      2. Go read the study. It does explain the causal link.

        1. I just read the study and it seems to claim the causal link is that pain from the surgery has psychological consequences which causes autism.

          The problem is that this doesn’t actually prove the problem is circumcision. A circumcision carried out responsibly and medically by an American doctor is not going to be the equivalent of a circumcision carried out ritually by Muslim parents.

          This seems to be an issue of effective pain management, not circumcision itself.

          1. Interesting. With no evidence whatsoever, I would imagine that the entire birthing process is painful (both physically and psychologically) for the newborn. Being squeezed out of a narrow cavity, covered in viscera, having an umbilical cord cut, being assaulted by light and sound for the first time, etc. I would have to imagine that’s just as traumatic as circumcision. Though I have no proof. Clearly someone should do an fMRI study of newborns to see if their pain regions light up in response to all of this.

          2. It doesn’t really claim anything. It found a correlation, and points to one possible mechanism with links to several studies showing why this might be plausible.
            In their words: “These findings obviously do not prove the suggested associations. However, in combination with recent animal studies showing lifelong deficits in stress responses following exposure to just one single neonatal insult, the observed strong correlation between circumcision and ASD prevalence, and clinical observations of long-term changes in pain perception in circumcised infants, our population-based findings should prompt other researchers to examine the possibility that circumcision trauma in infancy or early childhood might carry an increased risk of serious, yet hitherto unappreciated negative neurodevelopmental and psychological consequences.”

            The other study showing correlations between infant male circ and autism looked at nine countries, and also between US states. It seemed to suggest that the pain management itself ie paracetamol might be the problem:

            “For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n?=?9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country’s circumcision rate (r?=?0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S.”

          3. So if a baby feels pain it’s got a good chance of being autistic?

        2. It doesn’t “explain” shit. It throws out one completely unsupported guess with no attempt to corroborate. This whole study is ridiculous.

          1. You clearly haven’t read either this study, or the earlier study linking infant male circ to autism/ASD.

            1. I have read this one. Have you?

              1. I’ve read both of them. If you’ve read this latest study, then it’s hard to see how you can have posted your post at 11:44. It’s not a “completely unsupported guess”, since the numbers seem to back them up, and there are plenty of studies cited which make the proposed mechanism plausible.

      3. I know, it’s completely idiotic. There’s no conceivable causal link between these two things

        Traumatic amounts of pain are thought to be the catalyst by the proponents of this theory. To find out, they should select for eye and hair color to see if circumcised redheads with blue eyes have higher than average rates of autism (redheads and blue eyed people have lower than average pain tolerance).

    2. This study means comments/page views.

      1. This study came *after* they made their recommendation. It means they started with the conclusion and “found” data to validate it.

        1. Dcotors in European countries, especially in Scandinavia, have been against circumcision for years. The other study showing correlations between circumcision and autism was from the US though.

          1. Is the other study design as ridiculous as this one’s?

            1. I’ve linked to it in another comment, so you can read it for yourself. They use completely different methods, and I don’t think either of them are “ridiculous”.

              1. You’ve hit the point in an argument where anyone who is going to be convinced is convinced and anyone arguing with you is just enjoying the banter.

    3. I think Autism as a singular condition is probably real. I’m a little bit skeptical when it’s described as a “spectrum.” Don’t we all fall somewhere on the spectrum?

      1. Yes we are. And children of well off non-religious white people tend to be diagnosed more often than others.

        1. As with a lot of psychological disorders, there seems to be a push to broaden the definition as widely as possible. That being said, based on my own anecdotal experience, there does seem to be an autism condition. I’m just skeptical of the “spectrum” concept.

          1. Here’s the spectrum:

            Extreme social butterfly — average level of sociability — kind of aspy (that’s me) — Asperger’s Syndrome — high-functioning autism — locked-in barely functioning autism.

            And every point in between.

            1. I’d second that. Compared to most stand-up comedians, Joe Average would seem autistic.

              This study found a much stronger correlation between circumcision and autism diagnosed by age five though, than it did between circ and autism diagnosed by age ten. Earlier diagnosis usually means more severe symptoms.

              1. This is generally the case with all of the personality disorders. For instance, we all would score somewhere on the modified Hare test and have at least some sociopathic traits. We’re not all sociopaths. It’s almost like there’s a huge complicated interplay of genetics, epigenetics, etc going on here.

        2. That;s because non-religious white people are bien-pensant liberal social conformists, and as such the thought of having a child that doesn’t display the proper degree of group-thinky social togetherness is abhorrent.

          1. the thought of having a child that doesn’t display the proper degree of group-thinky social togetherness is abhorrent.

            That definitely isn’t a problem for all the other designations…

      2. Meh – having dealt with several special needs children, they can range from serious to mild. Autism – if that is the correct definition for all these kid’s affliction – certainly seems to have different levels. I believe back in the day that a person who was “slow” or way different (socially speaking) would now be lumped into autism.

        My nephew is an Aspie – he seems completely normal at first but a few sentences later and he is off into the weeds. He just doesn’t pick up on social cues that he is boring people with his pet peeves.

        A kid with autism is like this… but varying in levels of social ability;

        1. Maybe he picks up the cues, but, like me, doesn’t give a shit.

      3. When I took Psychiatry, infantile/juvenile autism was thought merely to be an early manifest’n of schizophrenia, not a syndrome of its own.

    4. I could imagine something like the trauma of circumcision performed at a particular time in development might make a child withdraw emotionally.

      Probably not, but it’s tenuously plausible.

      1. Kellogg helped push it back into American practice to stop masturbation:

        A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.

        1. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice

          Wait, wut? At what age was he recommending this procedure?

          Anyway, I would hazard a guess that if stopping masturbation is the intent, it’s a complete failure.

          1. Gotta love Victorian behavioral modification techniques.

          2. He was pushing for it in early adolescence. And carbolic acid on the clits girls to keep them from being overly stimulated. Kellogg was a monstrous nutter. His Wikipedia entry has a decent summation, but his life is more interesting and insane than a Wikipedia article can contain. Kellogg believed cut dicks were less fun, and that we should avoid meat and eat extremely dull foods like corn flakes to avoid being driven to excessive sexual stimulation. Many of his ideas on cleanliness which aren’t entirely accurate have entered popular consciousness.

            He also may not be the inventor of, but certainly made popular the idea that if you masturbate too much you’ll go blind.

            1. I am a bit farsighted….

            2. Kellogg was a monstrous nutter.

              So was Peter North.

              1. *faints*

      2. Yet two weeks prior the boy was jerked out of a cozy waterworld, jammed into a bloody tunnel of hell, and smacked in the ass by a monster wearing white…

  7. This is going to be a hilarious comment section.

    1. Already getting there, Irish, already getting there..

  8. Also, burkhas cause honor killings to happen — because confounding factors are never a problem and correlation always equals causation.

  9. Oh! All those poor, poor autistic Jews!

    1. How are they so good with the money? Must be a Rain Man thing….

    2. Right thread this time!

  10. Deep-dish pizza causes retardation.

    FACT.

    Discuss.

    1. I guess we could find out if fetuses didn’t self-abort upon having deep dish pizza “nutrients” forced into them.

    2. You realize, sir, this means war!

      *sends mobilization order to every pizza place in Greater Chicagoland Area*

    3. Thin crust meatlovers, or GTFO.

    4. Hot dogs cause leukemia!

      1994’s panic…today!

    5. Not the cause, it’s a symptom.

  11. In January, some Scandinavian medical societies recommended that circumcision of male infants and young boys be banned. Some Scandinavian news reports have characterized the procedure as unconsented “mutilation.”

    In a shocking development, Scandanavian scientists and “experts” confirm the opinions of the people paying their rent.

  12. It’s a wonder everyone isn’t autistic.

    1. It is a good bet the people who did this study were.

      1. Je suis autistic!

        *holds up Reason article while standing by la Tour Eiffel*

        1. I had no idea the Eiffel tower was circumcised.

  13. Cutting off a piece of skin causes… That doesn’t even pass the straight-face test.

  14. At least they can grow it back.

  15. You know who caused side effects after cutting off parts of people…

    1. Darth Vader?

      1. I was thinking Joesf Mengele, but – excellent!

    2. Yehowah?

      1. The problem with Yewah is that he thinks he’s God.

  16. That is the most “lolwut” title ever.

    1. This is the second peer-reviewed study to find a correlation between infant circumcision and autism/ASD. This needs to be followed up as a matter of urgency. If the same results are found elsewhere, then it seems highly likely that a number of cases of autism could be prevented simply by not circumcising, or possibly doing it later in life, or by using general anesthetic during the operation or different pain relief for post-operative pain (it could be paracetamol causing the problem).

      1. Didn’t realize paracetamol was acetaminophen.

        1. Yup. Also known as Tylenol and Panadol.

      2. Peer reviewed bullshit is still bullshit. Michael Mann’s hockey stick garbage was peer reviewed as well. Evah heard of red noise?

        1. At BEST, circumcision is a marker for something else that might contribute to the development of autism.

  17. So, in order to create more libertarians, all we need to do is circumcise more people?

      1. “Oh dad! We’re all Aspo!”

  18. *checks calendar – confirms it’s not April 1*

  19. Yeah, OK.

    Who paid for this study?

    1. It appears that no-one did, since the paper says “Funding: None declared”.

      1. “Dutch researchers seek circumsized, borderline autistic, male volunteers for unfunded study.”

        1. They used publicly available data as described in the paper, which is also publicly available. The other paper showing correlations between circumcision and autism was by authors who work at the University of Massachusetts, and covered data from nine different countries.

    2. They don’t want to draw attention to it.

  20. I’M TAKING BETS NOW AS TO HOW MANY COMMENTS THIS POST WILL GET.

    1-1 it’s over 2000.

    1. The study is too stupid to warrant that many comments. Unless someone shows up and goes ballistic about vaccines/autism/circumcision (which is always a possibility) it’ll peter out around 150-200.

      1. “it’ll peter out around 150-200.”

        You did something there…and I saw it.

        1. Ewwwwwwww – I didn’t want to see it!

      2. something something deep dish pizza.

      3. Why’s it stupid? Thare are now two peer-reviewed studies which found a correlation between infant circumcision and autism/ASD. They used very different methodologies and proposed two distinct mechanisms.

      4. There’s already someone here touting this study as gospel. Is this a new troll, or one of those specific-subject trolls?

        1. I wouldn’t say he’s touting it as “gospel” he’s saying it’s something that’s worth further study instead of something that deserves an Ig Nobel Prize.

          This does seem to be the first time he’s commented, but it could just be an issue he has specific familiarity with and felt like contributing was worthwhile.

          I didn’t really comment until two short women got shot a few blocks from my route to work for looking JUST like Chris Dorner.

        2. I’m new to this site, but definitely not a troll.

          I’m not saying it’s “gospel”, but I think it’s very wrong to dismiss it, just because the findings are unexpected, especially when it’s not the first such peer-reviewed study. This needs to be followed up as a matter of urgency. If the same results are found elsewhere, then it seems highly likely that a number of cases of autism could be prevented simply by not circumcising, or possibly doing it later in life, or by using general anesthetic during the operation or different pain relief for post-operative pain (it could be paracetamol causing the problem).

          1. YOU don’t get to decide if you are a troll or not.

          2. Given that the anti-vaccine movement is cenetered in California, this really could be just the thing to give them a new theory to fixate on.

            1. What possible connection does this have with the anti-vaccine movement?

              1. Umm, vaccines cause autism according to Andrew Wakefield and later Jenny McCarthy. While the anti-vaxx movement is more diffuse than that, the MMR vaccine causes autism has been at the heart of it for decades.

                Giving anti-vaxxers a different cause for autism to latch onto might disrupt some of them.

                1. Sorry, I thought you were comparing the people behind these studies to anti-vaxxers.

                  Andrew Wakefield’s study probably shouldn’t have been published even before the payments and undisclosed conflicts of interest emerged. It was based on just 12 case studies. It was in the news a lot around the time my children were due their shots, and I was amazed that anyone was taking it seriously.

    2. 2000 comment posts are a rarity since Alissi cleaned out the infestation. I say 150.

      1. Calling it a rarity seems still too generous. I can’t even remember the last one. Unless they just happen on the weekends and I miss them all?

        1. Huge threads tend to happen when we get a bunch of TEAM RED trolls, which usually happens in weekend threads that seem all commiepeacefagnazish. I don’t remember the last one that got to 2000 either, though.

          1. That Richman “Kyle = Lanza” one is at 827 – and that is the largest one in a while.

          2. I think it was one that involved White Indian.

          3. Even Richman’s “Let’s compare American soldiers to Adam Lanza” thread didn’t reach 2000.

            That was on a weekday though. If it had been one of only two or three threads posted on a weekend, I think it could have made a run at 2000.

            I think the thread after the Newtown shooting might have reached 2000.

            1. I was wrong. That only reached 700.

  21. Doesn’t autism correlate pretty well with intelligence? And Jews are smart. And lame.

    1. They are smart enough to become ultra-rich off movies I hate. This likely just means I’m lame.

      1. But not rich. Why can’t you be more like your brother?

  22. In other news, ice cream causes rape. When consumption of ice cream goes up, rapes go up too, and vice versa.

    Perish the thought that warm weather has anything to do with it.

    1. Warty smells the ice cream on your breath and comes for you. Brush your teeth kids!

    2. This correlation seems to have been found across ten different countries though by two peer-reviewed papers using different methodologies, and there are two plausible mechanisms.

  23. Come to think of it, this could be a brilliant piece of anti-Muslim propaganda. Convince them all that circumcision will make their kids (especially boys) autistic. It will drive them crazy.

    Banning circumcision would also be a great way to inhibit Muslim immigration.

  24. California will be completely overrun with unvaccinated, uncut douche bags.

    1. And that will be different, how?

      1. lol, just ever moar of them

  25. It’s just the tip.

  26. Autistic Jew here. I’m suing the mohel, my parents, and G-d.

    1. Autistic, Protestant Christian here. I’m suing the Jews.

      Like John Dillinger, I’m going where the money is…

    2. Are there any non-Jew, non-Aspies on this here site?

      *glares at room while chewing tobacco*

      1. raises hand tentatively

        1. SHUT UP, JEW!

      2. I haven’t been diagnosed with either Aspergers or Judaism.

      3. My non-Jewish mutilated cock is on the social butterfly end of the scale.

        1. Hey, mine too! Unfortunately it’s connected to someone who is on the other end of the scale.

      4. I think so. I’m Scandinavian and I hate sci-fi.

        1. Hate sci-fi? So how do you explain the furniture?

  27. OT MOTHERFUCKING GIRL SCOUT COOKIES!!!!!!!

    I did limit myself to one ROW of those goddamned tagalongs this morning.

    I’ll get to the rest of the box today. I’m sure of it.

    Fuckers.

    1. It’s all in the crackle and crinkle of the package. The cookies are a minor contrivance in the svelte dance occurring between your neuro-transponders and physical sensationals.

      The girl scouts understand this juxtaposition well enough to capitalize on this thing called the human myriad.

      You should be drug into the muds of unholy for treading so disdainfully on a topic addressing the dick tip.

    2. I never buy any, because I know if I did I’d eat the whole thing of Somoas as soon as it was opened. My only hope for being self-restrained is by being smart about it.

      1. I managed to eat only 2-6 Samoas a day until the box was gone. It depleted all of my self control for the week though and I went on several murderous rapey rampages and took up smoking instead.

    3. ANY OF YOU MOTHERFUCKERING FUCKERS TOUCH MY FUCKING TAGALONGS AND THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

      1. You realize half of us everyone here has a terrible case of Oppositional Defiant Disorder. You’ve just made your Tagalongs a target of the community.

        *Dons ninja mask, throws smoke bomb, disappears into the shadows*

        1. You just made the list, pal.

    4. those chocolate covered mints… I would kill for them – if necessary.

  28. We’ve been saving the foreskins and making Kosher calamari out of them.

    1. +1 wallet that turns into a briefcase when rubbed

  29. Well, I’m out of here. Why am I even reading this – no-one’s foreskin me to read it. I would just like to pour some mohel on troubled waters.

  30. Assemble your foreskins!

  31. This is why I always donate to H.O.O.P.

    1. I’m still fighting TBA.

  32. Correlation =/= causation

    Given that the people who choose to circumcise their male infants may not be a representative sample of the population at large, this correlation is hardly proof of causation.

    1. prefer != to the none operator =/=

    2. They didn’t say it was, but that’s now two studies using different methods which have found statistically significant correlations between infant circumcision and autism/ASD, so it surely has to be worth further investigation.

      1. Uh…you don’t understand the fallacy then. What has to happen is that you need a working theory of causation to back up the correlation. In fact, most of the time the investigator has some apriori idea of what might be going on before the stats are compiled. So it does not warrant further investigation at all based on “statistically significant” correlation. Here is a good example of statistically significant correlation meaning nothing

        1. Both studies proposed plausible mechanisms.

  33. I but didn’t read the article carefully, just gave it a quick glans.

    1. but

      1. Quick glans in the butt is what I read. NO amount of cross-out will revert your Freudian into something less suspicious.

  34. I couldn’t walk for a year after I was circumcised.

    1. You also enjoyed the most titty of your entire life…

      1. For those of us who are Gen X, the booby was a rare thing. Formula on the other hand….

        1. I know- that’s why you are all shit. It’s like we’ve got 2 entire generations we’ve got to pay for and institutionalize now.

          1. *cries into coffee*

            It’s true, it’s all true

            1. *slaps coffee off desk*

              Coffee is for breastfeeders!

  35. Bad science… but interesting study? I mean, if one could really get into the data there might be so many opportunities. Socioeconomic class? Religion? Ethnicity?

    Regardless, circumcision is a bad idea. It’s body modification without authorization. It carries risks and only prevents issues that are otherwise preventable via nonsurgical means, etc.

    1. It’s unexpected, but that doesn’t mean it’s bad science. This is now the second study to show a sginificant correlation between infant male circumcision and autism/ASD though, and they used different methodologies, and proposed two mechanisms. I’ve linked to both papers in another comment.

      1. It’s not bad science because it’s unexpected, troll. It’s bad science because the methodology is absurd, there are no controls and they left out any data that didn’t fit the fore-ordained conclusion.

        1. The foreordained conclusion was that circumcision may cause autism?

          1. Yep.

            1. So by “foreordained conclusion” you mean “hypothesis.” Got it.

              1. Nope. I mean the methodology was “These data don’t fit the hypothesis, we should ignore them.”

                1. That’s not what happened though. If you think I’m wrong, then please say where both these peer-reviewed studies went wrong. Remember that both researchers and peer-reviewers know they have to be doubly careful of anything involving autism these days because of the Wakefield debacle.

        2. There’s nothing whatsoever absurd about the methodology, and if it had found a correlation between infant circ and something beneficial, I suspect you wouldn’t have a problem with it. You seem to be the one trolling to me.

          1. Ad hominem. I don’t care one way or another about circumcision, but the methodology was shit. Granted, it was a sociological study, so that’s pretty much a given, but still, they could’ve at least tried.

            1. 1. What was “shit” about the methodology?
              2. It wasn’t really a sociological study so much as a medical study.
              3. It’s not one, but two separate studies using different methodologies have found correlations between infant circumcision and autism/ASD.

    2. Regardless, circumcision is a bad idea.

      Maybe we will get to 1000 comments.

      1. I tried to do my part.

  36. This is the second peer-reviewed study to find a correlation between infant circumcision and autism/ASD. This needs to be followed up as a matter of urgency. If the same results are found elsewhere, then it seems highly likely that a number of cases of autism could be prevented simply by not circumcising.

    The studies are here:

    Bauer, Kriebel, 2013
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23656698
    “For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n?=?9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country’s circumcision rate (r?=?0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S.”

    Frisch, Simonsen, 2015
    http://jrs.sagepub.com/content…..2.abstract (free to download)
    “Results: With a total of 4986 ASD cases, our study showed that regardless of cultural background circumcised boys were more likely than intact boys to develop ASD before age 10 years (HR?=?1.46; 95% CI: 1.11?1.93). Risk was particularly high for infantile autism before age five years (HR?=?2.06; 95% CI: 1.36?3.13). Circumcised boys in non-Muslim families were also more likely to develop hyperkinetic disorder (HR?=?1.81; 95% CI: 1.11?2.96). Associations with asthma were consistently inconspicuous (HR?=?0.96; 95% CI: 0.84?1.10).”

    1. I can’t figure out if you’re a troll or a bot.

      1. Trolls and bots always post links to published studies and give well summarized abstracts of them.

        Trolls are in fact kings of showing their work rather than just throwing out inflammatory statements and running away.

      2. I’m going with troll.

      3. Which are you?

        1. Me? Neither. I’m simply an autistic, circumcised…wait…

      4. You got me, I’m a bot. I should have realised your finely honed powers of bot detection would see through my shallow programming. Everyone else that disagrees with you is a bot too btw.

  37. I am making a good salary from home $5500-$7000/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
    Here is I started,,,,,,
    ?????? ?????? ?????? http://www.netpay20.com

    1. Are you a troll or a bot?

      1. Thank you for giving me a serious case of the lols, waffles.

    2. Did you start by making up data for a circumcision-autism study?

  38. “Some Scandinavian news reports have characterized the procedure as unconsented ‘mutilation.'”

    In other news, some weather reports have characterized rain as “wet.”

  39. 1) Pick out something you don’t like
    2) Link it to Autism
    3) ????
    4) Profit!!!

    1. The Danish method?

    2. Climate change causes autism!

      Come to think of it, yeah I can roll with this.

    3. It’s not as simple as that to get two studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and it’s far from clear how the authors of either of the studies would profit from them.

  40. Lots of people know a lot about how science works, I see.

  41. Autism is simply the first stage of our take-over by the LGM.
    Has no one watched or read The Screwfly Solution?

  42. Six months ago I lost my job and after that I was fortunate enough to stumble upon a great website which literally saved me. I started working for them online and in a short time after I’ve started averaging 15k a month… The best thing was that cause I am not that computer savvy all I needed was some basic typing skills and internet access to start…
    This is where to start???.

    ?????????? http://www.netpay20.com

  43. The procedure does not injure or damage the function of the penis in any objectively measurable way, nor does it disfigure it, the latter being a subjective evaluation. There is no evidence women are running in horror from circumcised men. There are minor but real health benefits, along with minor but real risks, to the procedure. The autism link seems questionable. It seems a far more powerful driver of the anti-circumcision movement is the notion that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, and there are people who seem to think they are missing out on something by having been circumcised.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.