One of the factoids going around is that circumcision
reduces the incidence of urinary tract infections in infants.
Pro-circ websites and journalists frequently quote the
statistics of circumcisionist Thomas Wiswell.
They often underplay how rare UTIs are in males.
The trouble is the findings of Wiswell were initially
somewhat accepted by the AAP in 1989, but were rejected
in 1999.By then however, "circumcision reduces UTIs""The 1999 Task Force found that the bulk of the UTI studies were so methodologically flawed—by failing to control for confounding factors such as breastfeeding—that no meaningful conclusions could be drawn from them.
The 1999 AAP Task Force on Circumcision could not, therefore, recommend circumcision to reduce incidence of UTI (or any other disease)."
had entered folklore.
UTIs are much more common in young girls, but quite correctly
no-one is suggesting pre-emptive surgery for them. Breast feeding
is a very good way to prevent UTIs.
Recent studies in Israel found that circumcision increases UTIs.
I don't see how it can increase and decrease at the same time.
I challenge anyone to make a valid case that circ has
anything to do with reducing UTIs, I don't believe it has.