"Benefits include reduced childhood urinary tract infections, which are common, painful and often cause permanent kidney damage."

That seems fair enough.

"Male circumcision also provides some protection against many common, as well as not so common, sexually transmitted infections, including the epidemic of cancer-causing types of human papillomavirus and genital herpes, genital ulcer disease and HIV, among others."

Are there a lot of infants having sex? Seems like an issue in itself.

Do you really expect us to believe that there are 100,000 cases of penile cancer in Australia in any one year?

Stop trying to spruik the 'benefits' of mutilation.

Did you know that many clincial studies have shown that people who have both feet amputated at birth never develop athelete's foot?

That's the level of the desperation of your argument.

"For some time now, all the departments of health in Australia have based their policy on male circumcision on reviews of the scientific literature carried out periodically by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). But the lack of a strong basis on evidence means the government should reconsider this reliance."

Says who? Who says the basis is "weak?" We'll wait and see...

"An RACP policy statement in 2004 argued that the available evidence didn’t justify infant male circumcision being carried out to prevent illness. But when a withering critique of that 2004 policy was published in the Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health in 2006, the authors of the 2004 report didn’t even attempt to defend their work. This is generally considered an ominous sign in science."

Not really. It probably means they still maintain the same stance and thought the "critique" was obsolete.

"In 2010, the RACP published its most recent policy Circumcision of infant males. Again, the policy argued that the evidence didn’t justify infant male circumcision being carried out to prevent illness. But the 2010 policy statement was not quite as strongly opposed to infant circumcision as the 2004 policy had been."

It must be noted that the RACP is only following the current trend of opinion on routine male circumcision, which is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

"We have just published a comprehensive evaluation of the 2010 RACP policy in the College’s Internal Medicine Journal. All nine co-authors of the paper, including ourselves, are public health and public policy experts."

Yes, and who are you? Why do you matter?

"Our critique concludes that the RACP policy is not a fair and balanced representation of the literature on male circumcision because it is not based on research evidence."

Or at least on on your myopic cherry-picked collection of "evidence" that favors YOUR view. WHO are you?

"Instead, the RACP policy ignores, downplays, obfuscates or misrepresents the considerable body of research that shows circumcising males offers strong protection against a number of diseases."

Or, perhaps, they have actually considered all the research, and has, like other medical organizations around the world, found it to be insufficient. Perhaps those who "obfuscate or misrepresent" are those trying to lobby them to change their stance based on their special interest?

"Benefits include reduced childhood urinary tract infections, which are common, painful and often cause permanent kidney damage."

Actually, no, UTIs are quite rare. UTI's are so rare in boys that girls get them more and circumcision makes no difference. What's more, UTIs are easily treatable with anti-biotics. Surgery makes no sense to prevent an already rare, perfectly curable disease.

"Male circumcision also provides some protection against many common, as well as not so common, sexually transmitted infections, including the epidemic of cancer-causing types of human papillomavirus and genital herpes, genital ulcer disease and HIV, among others."

There is actually no scientific basis for any of these claims; SOME statistics show that there MIGHT be a correlation, but there is no actual causal link for any of these.

At any rate, even if the "correlations" were confirmed, condoms would still supercede circumcision. Thanks to actual medical research, circumcision is obsolete.

"Circumcision also helps protect against penile candidiasis (thrush), inflammatory skin conditions and inferior penile hygiene."

How common is candidiasis, and is it treatable without medicine? And is hygiene simply not possible without surgery?

"It can help those with physical problems, such as a tight foreskin that interferes with passing urine, and an inability to return the foreskin after it is retracted."

How many men will develop said physical problems? And are these problems not addressable by non-surgical means?

"It virtually eliminates the risk of penile cancer that occurs in one in 1,000 uncircumcised males over their lifetime."

Based on what evidence? Most medical authorities say that that rate is 1 in 100,000. I think the author Brian Morris at one point said it was 1 in 600. Boy the number keeps fluctuating...

Most medical authorities say that penile cancer is vanishingly rare, and has more to do with a person's habits than it does with their circumcision status.

"And there may also be some reduction in the risk of prostate cancer."

"May be?" Let's take a good look at reality; according to the American Cancer Society, 1 in 6 US men will develop prostate cancer. 80% of American men also happen to be circumcised from birth.

WHAT is the evidence for such a claim? Esoteric statistics that fail to correlate anywhere else. Additionally, no demonstrable causal link.

"Women with circumcised male partners are protected to varying degrees against cancer-causing human papillomavirus infection, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (Gardneralla), and cervical cancer."

Again, according to SOME faulty, skewed studies; other studies show no such correlation, and there is no demonstrable causal link. Some studies actually show that it is CIRCUMCISED men who facilitate the transmission of HPV more. But we'll not hear that here. Additionally, there are already a few vaccines for HPV on the market, rendering this consideration pointless.

"Although the RACP’s policy statement claims otherwise, complications of infant male circumcision are uncommon and virtually all minor and easily treated."

Why should we take Brian Morris' word, and the word of his circumcision club over the RACP, or any other medical organization in the world who consider that the risks do not outweigh the benefits? Why indeed?

"The RACP policy statement claims that “the foreskin has a functional role” and “is a primary sensory part of the penis”. However, extensive high quality research, including randomised controlled trials, show no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sensation or satisfaction."

This is laughable. What was the "extensive, high quality" work that was done to come up with this finding? The "researchers" basically told African men that circumcision would prevent AIDS, and gave them all kinds of pro-circ propaganda, and then they passed out a biased survey. The results were, of course, predictable. That's not "extensive" and "high quality." Did they actually test the penis and the foreskin for sensitivity themselves?

Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.

Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds In The Adult Penis British Journal of Urology International, 2007, Vol. 99, No. 4, 864-869 Sorrells et al.

"Instead of citing good research, such as large meta-analyses and randomised trials, the RACP policy selectively cites a poor quality study that has been criticised."

By whom? (None other than Brian Morris and friends...)

"The RACP’s claim – without support from a literature-based risk-benefit analysis – that the currently available evidence does “not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand” is misleading."

Again, the RACP would not be the only medical authority to come to the same conclusion.

"A risk-benefit analysis by a number of us who also wrote the Internal Medicine Journal article was published recently in the Open Journal of Preventive Medicine."

And, of course, it is more important than what the RACP has to say... Because... ?

"We found that the benefits of male circumcision were considerable and exceeded risks by a large margin; the risks are virtually all minor, while conditions prevented are often serious."

Surprise, surprise...

"The RACP policy fails to explain that circumcising boys in the neonatal period using local anaesthesia maximises benefits and safety, is convenient and offers cost savings."

They probably didn't "fail," as much as, this is not what they found.

"Our Internal Medicine Journal article concludes that because the RACP’s policy 'is not a fair and balanced representation of the current literature it should not be used to guide policy.'"

And it would. WHO are you again?

"We recommend that an extensive, comprehensive, balanced review of the scientific literature and a risk-benefit analysis should be conducted to formulate policy, in the interests of public health and individual well-being."

And it has. And, much to the chagrin of Brian Morris and friends, it is in favor of not mutilating children's genitals.

"Such a review was recently undertaken by the Circumcision Foundation of Australia."

Yes, no conflict of interest here...

"Health bodies, governments, doctors and the general public should use this evidence-based policy statement as a reliable guide to decision-making and health policy development."

Thank heavens they don't...

"Facing rising health costs, the federal government has recently increased its emphasis on prevention. Infant male circumcision is a good example of how difficult it can be to implement preventative measures."

It's also a good example of how people grope for a pseudo-scientific alibi for a highly controversial religious and cultural practice.

"The process starts with basing policy fairly and squarely on evidence and continues with overcoming obstruction from groups opposed to policy based on evidence. Watch this space."

Yes, watch this space. Watch Brian Morris and his colleagues. WHO are they? WHY are they above the RACP and other respected medical authorities in the world?

It bares repeating:

The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

Brian Morris and his colleagues are defying the whole of Western Medicine.

The standard of care for therapeutic surgery requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.

The trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West. It is remarkable that Brian Morris thinks he and his circumcision club actually think themselves to be above the RACP.

Since most of the men that made the RACP's policy on male circumcision will be circumcised themselves, why would they be biased against circumcision though?

It's not just the RACP that disagree with Professor Morris anyway:

Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

British Medical Association
http://bma.org.uk/-/media/Files/PDFs/Practical%20advice%20at%20work/Ethics/Circumcision.pdf
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."

Author: Brian Morris, member of the Gilgal Society. That should tell you all you need to know about this article before even reading this. This professor has no business encouraging this blatant human rights violation and has no business spreading lies. He feeds off of your misperceptions. Be smarter than listening to him- do your own research. You will quickly realize it is not necessary and all the reasons cited by Brian Morris is just wrong. Also be aware of the pro-circ sources you view...watch out for the Gilgal Society because Brian Morris is behind it.

I must admit, I clicked on the authors citation of what was referred to as "high quality research". I quickly realized the irony in doing so. I'm sorry, but seeing a website (belonging to one of the author's, Prof. Brian Morris) which hosts a link for "Circumcision humor" is one, not appropriate, and two, enough for anyone (who is respectful) to discredit the entire article. It's just plain weird.

Regardless of this, any of the "benefits" that are listed cannot justify forcing a permanent, irreversible surgical procedure on a healthy infant or young boy. The real issue lies within the medical community and individuals having respect for medical ethics, autonomy and human rights. Human rights are absolute no one should ever forget that including these author's.

Brian and Alex, sorry but I don't think you have handled this at all well, especially with your obsessing over government policy rather than on actual risk, here in Australia, to Australian boys.

In your paper, for example, you argue that UTI rates in uncircumcised males are 1-4% compared with 0.1-0.2% in circumcised boys, yet you fail to disclosed which boys, in what demographic cohort or SES status, beyond citing UK and US studies. That's not evidence of cause, merely correlation. By the same measure we can argue that 96-99% of uncircumcised boys are safe from UTI.

As with far too many of these 'evidence-based' reviews, it is all the questions left out of the survey that are always far more interesting and informative than those included, which tell us rather a lot more about selective bias in the researcher.

Like the rest of it, all this theory and review is persistently imported from overseas, I can only guess under the rubrik 'we are all human' yet at once confined to the Anglophone, common law jurisdictions without any sort of cross-cultural comparisons being carried out. All it represents is laziness in Australian scholars habitually more inclined to go off lobbying the parliament on the basis of what somebody else is doing somewhere else entirely, than to get their own local facts straight.

Here in Australia, for example, only the Desert Law peoples routinely circumcised not at infancy but at coming-of-age, for other reasons entirely, while beyond the Northern and Southern Circumcision Lines men went about happily as nature intended. Are you to tell us that all those different language and cultural groups suffered high rates of these diseases just because they were not circumcised?

The fact that you have set yourselves up as a political lobby group doesn't help either, especially when your papers are going to be read by others not expert in medicine perhaps but in childhood development risk and coming-of-age dysfunction. For many people these issues are intensely personal and private - the issue for them is the overall well-being of the child not whether they have been circumcised to satisfy some doctor somewhere.

What you need to do is persuade us of the real risk to OUR boys of all these scary infections, the rates of these infections in OUR families (thank you very much), not among some unwashed, sexually permissive, drug-addicted inner-city slum dwellers in New York or Manchester or somewhere, who may not only be uncircumscised but feral anyway.

In Western Australia, in years of raising boys, only about twice or three times did one of them come in with a red tip, only requiring a brief retraction and a good wash, and a bit of antiseptic. I consider that partly due to the fact that I took my sons back to the bush to raise, where they'd be exposed to dirt and mud, in order to build their immune systems, though as you can see even in that environment the rate was extremely low.

Certainly, I am not yet ready to considered neonatal or later circumcision as the preferred option, maybe as the last resort perhaps.

Evidence, please.

I have to say I'm really quite astonished this article has been included in The Conversation. How on earth do these arguments have any credibility? What about teaching parents to teach their un-mutilated sons how to keep their penises clean? I wonder what illnesses and diseases can be avoided by female circumcision?

I really thought The Conversation had a higher standard than this.

For what it's worth, my brother had difficulty withdrawing his foreskin and his doctor suggested circumcision as one possible remedy. He opted to have it removed. Ever since he's claimed that he gets nowhere near the level of sensation as before when ejaculating. I presume that was caused by the glans losing some of its sensitivity to compensate for the lack of a foreskin's protection. (The foreskin is there for a reason.)

Hearsay evidence, of course, and others may not be so affected. However, if you were circumcised as an infant, you'd never know.

As for the whole issue of infant circumcision, given the low risk involved, it should be discouraged in the same way as female genital mutilation is. When they reach an appropriate age, boys can choose whether or not to have it. I suspect not many would, except for religious or cultural reasons.

"Disclosure Statement
The authors do not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article. They also have no relevant affiliations."

According to all of the above comments and evidence, the disclosure statement would be false, right?

Risks increased by having a foreskin: UTI - uncommon in boys, usually due to some malformation of the urinary tract way before the penis/foreskin. Therefore VERY uncommon in anatomically normal boys. Easily treated, and those with anatomical problems cured with surgery.

STI's of all sorts - easily prevented by simple non-invasive means (condoms, education)

Penile hygeine - easily carried out by washing(!) - foreskin or not!

Penile cancer: rare - 1/100,000 in the developed world!

Risks of anaesthesia (local and general) and surgery in the neonate: not insignificant, and include death. Or you can do it without anaesthesia - brutal.

Add to this the economic costs of circumcising all male infants.

Crazy stuff.

I cannot see how a risk benefit analysis can possibly come out on the side of routine neonatal circumcision.

( To declare my affiliations - I was a Paediatric Anaesthetist in my previous career)

There is not one legitimate justification for surgically tampering with the penises of little boys. Not one.

The authors of this pathetic article, in their zeal to promote genital surgery where none is needed or consented to, use excuses that do not justify violating a child's human right to bodily integrity.

Morris and Wodak neglect to reveal that circumcision causes a sickness, a mental sickness they are obviously familiar with; that is, forced circumcision causes some people to fetishize genital mutilations of children.

Until recently both authors were closely associated with the Gilgal Society, a pro-circumcision group that included a man named Vernon Quaintance at the helm. Quaintance was recently arrested and charged having large amounts of kiddie porn.

Those closely associated with Vernon Quaintance tried to scrub their websites of associated links, but most of these pages were saved and archived as evidence before being removed.

As the world moves toward a better understanding of human sexual anatomy and human rights a disreputable few grasp at straws to try and justify surgically assaulting children's genitals. The sick people currently promoting genital cutting of children will go down in history with those who oppressed others based on race, gender, sexuality, etc.

Renowned Jewish American scholar Leonard Glick author of, "Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision From Ancient Judea to Modern America" stated in an interview, "I am totally convinced that cutting the genitals of children, infants or children, girls or boys is fundamentally evil."

"And there may also be some reduction in the risk of prostate cancer."

As a bit of a side-issue, but conceptually related, I believe nearly all prostate cancers could be avoided by removing the prostates of all men by the time they turn 45-50. Removing prostates only when men already have prostate cancer is usually too late to make a difference because prostate cancer cells escape into the rest of the body very early. Fortunately, most of those cancers don't kill the host anyway.

I think the main benefit of prostate removal is that it removes the organ that could generate dangerous cancers in the future, but that benefit is the same whether you already have prostate cancer or not.

Of course, people are not going to accept the removal of every man's prostate, even though it's just as effective as removing the prostate of only those who already have prostate cancer.

There is a correspondence between removing prostates and circumcision. They both potentially prevent disorders or diseases. They both carry a risk of causing disfunction. People probably don't like pre-emptive circumcision for the same type of reason they don't like pre-emptive prostatectomy.

This article is a very surprising one for the Conversation being, as it is, misinformed and misleading.

Having not heard of the Gilgal Society, of course I had to investigate. I found this item:

http://circumstitionsnews.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/sydney-brian-morris-fails-to-erase.html

Says it all.

I do not understand why you are so eager to circumcise at infancy. Why not wait until the penis is fully developed and the man can get anesthesia and pain medicine?
It doesn't help that for millions of years men AND women have had foreskins. It's a functioning part of the body. There is no reason to cut it off, especially in a world of water and condoms.
It does not help that girls are more likely to get UTIs than boys. So perhaps we should cut off their prepuces too? Ridiculous. There really is not a good reason to subject a baby to this surgery.

Where is the research on the EMOTIONAL effect of circumcision?
Any therapist who works with the unconscious mind will tell you that the earlier the "event" the more profound the emotional effect.
For example a hundred years ago, babies in US orphanages were kept in sterile rooms without contact to prevent disease almost all died before they were seven months old. More recent research shows a much higher rate of childhood abuse in Caesarean born children. Children born during war time show effect too.
I've seen videos of the circumcision operations and those tiny little boys were screaming and looked terrified.
Any unnecessary operation is insanity. Don't doctors have enough to do?

I'm quite certain that history with harshly judge those who have abused their positions in society along with the honerable traditions of science in an attempt to justify the brutal violation of children's bodies and human rights.

It is patently obvious to anyone who cares to look, that circumcision benefits exist only in the minds of circumcision advocates and the papers they relentlessly publish.

What health benefit has the U.S. realised from the circumcision of around 100 million boys in the last century? Absolutely none. Indeed, countries that don't cut their children (like Japan, Scandinavia, Western Europe etc. etc.) have far superior sexual health outcomes.

It is disappointing the The Conversation has seen fit to publish such a trashy piece from members of a lobby group, who's sole area of advocacy involves the excision of healthy, erogenous tissue from the sexual organs of babies.

The lesson coming out of Germany and Europe, is that the days of civilised societies tolerating this heinous sex crime are numbered.

There are no provable benefits to circumcision. If there were, we would have seen them at some point during the last century of circumcision research. We would have seen them in the US, with the highest rate of circumcision in the developed world. And we'd certainly see some benefits in Africa. We see none.

Instead, we see the highest rates of HIV and STDs of any developed nation in the US despite (or *because of) the near universal circumcision there for years. Then there are *three* unfinished, poorly designed, badly controlled, and thoroughly debunked trials in Africa that attempted to show the benefits of circumcision, yet only show the benefits of carefully massaged statistics at the hands of biased, self-interested researchers.

Even *if* there were some benefit, or even *if* someone believed there might be some benefit, it is entirely reasonable to wait until the person in question is an adult and old enough to determine for *himself* whether to be circumcised after weighing the facts. In any case, there is absolutely no demonstrable reason to force circumcision on any child. Period.

Wow! Professor Morris, that's a pretty strong series of comments. I was surprised yesterday to discover that my mother and sister - with seven-decades worth of nursing experience in remote and regional Australia between them - also have a strong opinion on this matter. But strong opinions are one thing and published peer-reviewed research quite another. The scientific record is supposed to contain only independently verified results in which we can have confidence. I noticed recently in a "Comments" section in the prestigious journal "Nature" that - as an ignored referee - you pursued the retraction of what you considered a deeply flawed paper:

"The paper in question was scientifically flawed, grossly distorted the literature in the field clearly to progress the authors' stated personal agenda. The statistical analyses were erroneous. I recommended rejection, but after being sent a revised version in which virtually none of my extensive list of initial criticisms was addressed I stated that extensive corrections were required. When it then appeared on-line in advance... The paper in question should be retracted. I can understand that the Editors might be embarrassed that this paper slipped through in to print. But their failure to take any steps to date to address the situation that has arisen now leads to an impression of complicity. Is there a higher authority individuals such as me can turn to for advice?" (see link below).

Professor Morris, I raise this issue because there is an obvious and urgent example of a deeply flawed paper requiring correction or retraction closer to home - at the University of Sydney. I'm hoping that senior scientists at the University will join me in arguing for remedial action on the high-profile "Australian Paradox" paper by Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller.

Last week, a widely respected journalist - Michael Pascoe - skewered the authors in a piece that highlighted their struggle with key facts and documented less-than-ideal scholarly conduct (shall we say) on the way to their published rebuttal of my critique: http://christopherjoye.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/journo-skewers-university-of-sydney.html

On Friday, I emailed a distinguished Australian intellectual (a retired high-level public official) who has been a keen observer of the public debate for many decades. He's been there and seen that, so as a cross-check on my sense of "balance" I asked him a basic question: "if you have time, do you have in your head a concise definition of [i] academic misbehaviour; [ii] scientific fraud"? His answer was brief, cutting to the chase: "Yes, this seems an example of both."

Professor Morris and Dr Wodak, the key question is WHY the exact moment that Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller agreed with each other that it was time to quietly retract without acknowledgement their made-up false claim about ethanol production/cars consuming big chunk of the available sugar, somehow was NOT also the right moment to agree to formally correct or retract their entire error-ridden paper?

The unreasonable delay in removing the clearly false but supposedly twice-verified claim of the "Australian Paradox!" - an extraordinary "inverse relationship" between sugar consumption and obesity - from the scientific record increasingly has reasonable people wondering when a series of inadvertent errors deliberately left uncorrected becomes scientific misconduct? ( (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct )

Any thoughts, anyone?

In the University of Sydney's initial response to me on the shabby Australian Paradox paper, Vice-Chancellor Dr Michael Spence wrote that he had been advised that no action was required: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/SydneyUniVC%20LETTER070612.pdf .

At that stage, Dr Spence seemed rather poorly advised (by whom?) and perhaps had not absorbed the sub-par nature of his scientists' deeply flawed analysis: http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/NutrientsLETTER2405122.pdf .

Professor Morris, one hopes Dr Spence will have a closer look at the issue now that his senior scientists' poor command of facts and poor scholarship more generally in this episode have become clear to a growing audience.

For example, Dr Rosemary Stanton on these pages recently described the Australian Paradox study as "silly" because “we have no evidence that sugar consumption in Australia has fallen”. In summary: “I have many objections to that particular paper and to the idea that sugar is not a problem”. Moreover, "I have expressed my opinion about the paper to the authors and - when it was published - I commented on it in several fora. I will almost certainly cite it at some stage as an example of something I consider to be incorrect" (http://theconversation.edu.au/two-books-one-big-issue-why-calories-count-and-weighing-in-6372 )

My simple position is Dr Alan Barclay and Professor Jennie Brand-Miller's supposedly twice-verified scientific observation - "an inverse relationship" between the consumption of added sugar and obesity, the Australian Paradox! - is factually incorrect, should never have been published, and so should be corrected or retracted without further unreasonable delay (http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/research-causes-stir-over-sugars-role-in-obesity-20120330-1w3e5.html ).

Given independent and competent quality control, the error-ridden Australian Paradox study clearly would never have been published. It is hard to know why anyone thought that allowing an author - any author - also to wear the hat of "Guest Editor" of a scientific journal was a good idea. Who is in charge of quality control at the University of Sydney?

In any case, Professor Morris and Dr Wodak, the Australian Paradox paper was published and has become a menace to Australian public health (see # 6 at http://www.australianparadox.com/ ).

And now the authors have been caught red-handed by a widely respected journalist in a rather unscholarly process of pretending that the big holes in their Australian Paradox story do not exist (http://www.smh.com.au/business/pesky-economist-wont-let-big-sugar-lie-20120725-22pru.html )

That "Retraction" article in the prestigious science journal "Nature" observed:

"It is reassuring that retractions are so rare, for behind at least half of them lies some shocking tale of scientific misconduct — plagiarism, altered images or faked data — and the other half [sic] are admissions of embarrassing mistakes. But retraction notices are increasing rapidly. In the early 2000s, only about 30 retraction notices appeared annually. This year, the Web of Science is on track to index more than 400..." (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a.html ) .

So, globally, the number of formal retractions of scientific papers is rising rapidly, and there is plenty of room for one more. The article observes that “Perhaps surprisingly, scientists and editors broadly welcome the trend.”

In my opinion, the time has come for the University of Sydney to correct or retract the shoddy Australian Paradox paper.

Professor Morris and Dr Wodak, if you and others think what I am saying is reasonable in terms of preserving the integrity of the scientific record, please hit "Reply" - and please argue the case around the University of Sydney and across the academic and medical communities more generally. If you or others think what I am saying is unreasonable, please hit "Reply" and let us know why.

I strongly suspect that all those males who have their baby boys circumcised are themselves circumcised. I suspect also that advocates of mandatory circumcision at birth are circumcised too. Yet I doubt there are many uncircumcised males choosing to have their male infants circumcised without a medical reason.

All this leads me to conclude that there's an interesting psychology at play here. Perhaps it should be called Foreskin Deprivation Syndrome.