Every month I receive a free copy of the magazine American Baby. The other night I was reading it before bed and I came across something that just blew my mind. It read, and I quote this-
"Should You Circumcise? If you're on the fence, it may help to know that 79 percent of newborn boys are circumcised in the U.S., and they have a lower risk of developing urinary tract infections in their first year and STD's later in life. Source: Center For Disease Control and Prevention."
You can see it on the original page here in the green box:
I read this and my jaw literally dropped and my head became all confused for a moment. I knew it wasn't right but I started second guessing myself. Did I miss something? If they state the source is the CDC then it must be true. Right? Right??
Wrong.
I don't know the exact statistics about circumcision rates but I knew this was not right. I'm not stupid, I knew. I spent the next two hours of that night researching information and trying to find that statistic on the CDC's website. No luck. There is not one statistic by the CDC that says 79% of boys are circumcised.
There is not a single statistic ANYWHERE that says 79% of newborns are circumcised. This statement is plain wrong and not true.
I wrote American Baby a letter about this. I'm pretty irritated that they would print false information, especially with something as important as this. Turns out I'm not the only one who thinks this way either. I talked to Danelle and she has been in contact with others about this mess. Ten doctors (so far) are writing to American Baby Magazine and two are from the CDC board.
The main point that I want to make in all this is that you should not believe everything you read. I cannot stress enough how important it is to do your OWN research. And, just because something says it has a valuable source such as CDC, it doesn't mean it's an accurate, true source. As you can see from this magazine, people can lie. Magazines can publish false information.
If you feel so inclined, write your own letter! DO IT! The Editor -In -Chief of the magazine is Judy Nolte. Her email addresses is judy@americanbaby.com You can even copy my letter- I don't care. Don't let these crazies get away with printing false information!
This is the letter I sent them-
Hi Judy,
I'm a young mother who reads your magazine when it shows up in my mailbox. For the most part, I enjoy it and find the articles somewhat interesting. However, your editors made a big mistake in this issue. On page 18 of the July 2009 edition, it writes that "79% of boys are circumcised in the US." The source is listed as CDC. I don't know where you're claiming that the CDC says that, but that statistic is not accurate. I could not find a single statistic by the CDC saying that 79% of boys in the United States are circumcised. There has been a case where the numbers were CLOSE to 79% but that was in the midwest NOT the United States. Your magazine is stating that 79 percent of boys are circumcise in the UNITED STATES. These are sources here that display the accurate information: According to the AHRQ the highest statistics ever nationwide were 65% in 1980. You can also find accurate information here: National Hospital Discharge Survey CDC- 1999: 65%
If you find the my findings are wrong, then I apologize. If you have the correct source to support your saying of 79%, please email me the source as I am very interested to see it. Please make sure that your writers are using correct, accurate information when writing in American Baby, especially if you are citing a source. This is a very important issue and I hate to see information used incorrectly.
Thank you!
* Amy emailed me back with this source: (it's not letting me copy her email on her for some reason.)
Thank you for your letter. Below, please find the source of the 79 percent statistic. It comes from a 2007 study that was conducted by CDC researchers.
0BJECTIVES:: To study the prevalence of circumcision in the United States and to examine the association between circumcision and herpes simplex virus Type 2 (HSV-2) infection.
METHODS:: As part of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2004, 6174 men were interviewed about circumcision status and sexual behaviors, and were tested for HSV-2 antibodies. Medical artwork was used to aid the reporting of circumcision status.
RESULTS:: The overall prevalence of circumcision was 79% and varied by race/ethnicity (88% in non-Hispanic whites, 73% in non-Hispanic blacks, 42% in Mexican Americans, and 50% in others). For men born in the United States from 1940 through 1979, the prevalence of circumcision increased, with larger increases in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites; the prevalence of circumcision decreased significantly in those born in the 1980s (84%) compared to those born in 1970s (91%)
METHODS:: As part of National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1999 to 2004, 6174 men were interviewed about circumcision status and sexual behaviors, and were tested for HSV-2 antibodies. Medical artwork was used to aid the reporting of circumcision status.
RESULTS:: The overall prevalence of circumcision was 79% and varied by race/ethnicity (88% in non-Hispanic whites, 73% in non-Hispanic blacks, 42% in Mexican Americans, and 50% in others). For men born in the United States from 1940 through 1979, the prevalence of circumcision increased, with larger increases in non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans than in non-Hispanic whites; the prevalence of circumcision decreased significantly in those born in the 1980s (84%) compared to those born in 1970s (91%)
To which I wrote back: Thank you for sending that to me! That result says 6174 men were interviewed. That is NOT the entire population of the United States. That's only 6174 people. Thanks. :)
I added a smiley face for good measure.
And she wrote back again:
"When such a large sample is taken, it is okay to use that as a representation of the U.S. Population. It would be impossible to look at every single man in the U.S."
I'm done with this now. :)
Comments are now closed
Thank you to all of you who left great thoughts- I really appreciate it. People should feel welcome to ask questions and get answers without being beaten on. My blog is not a place for name calling- People of all walks of life and beliefs/opinions are welcome here. We all do what is best for our family and our children and that is what matters. Truly, one of my main objectives is to encourage us to all do our own research and not believe everything we read.
30 comments:
I never really care about statisitics in magazines...thats not why I do things the way I do as a parent. But still they should make sure they are accurate.
Ah. So the prevalence of circumcision among the 6174 men in their survey is 79%. Obviously that is representative of the other 150 million. :eyeroll:
I cannot believe she said that last one to you, totally unethical! Very very wrong!
That's a LARGE sample?? Good grief. I know home birth studies that have been done on 200,000+ women, and are still dismissed as not being inclusive enough. Hrmph.
Oh, and about STDs and circumcision: I have an idea, how about we teach our sons to use condoms instead of just cutting off a bit of their penis? Significantly less invasive.
Wow - I can't believe they would print false info like that and then justify it with 6700 people, like that really is a full-fledged survey.
Hey - I nominated you for an Honest Scrap award. Play along if you want, but don't feel obligated. Check out my site for the details!
I wouldn't even consider that number to BE a large sample. How could they possibly say that's a good representation of the males in the US? Wow, I'm shocked. Thanks for posting this. Good job mama!
After that last one she sent I was NOT going to 'sugar coat' my email to her, this is what I sent to her:
Hello Judy,
I am a mother of 3 children and I am writing because a blogger wrote about a small square on page 18 of the July 2009 edition,
that it writes that "79% of boys are circumcised in the US." That is not true. Many online based parents now that the circumcision
rate is about 56% and most of us are very uncomfortable that your magazine have published wrong information on this issue.
You need to provide accurate information, your circumcision stats is wrong and misleading to new parents that are facing with the decision.
Thank You,
Enith Hernandez
oh crepes! spotted a typo in my email - oh well too late LOL
I am VERY infuriated about this, how horrible...
I read a similar publication on this study (printed in a different medical journal).
Really, this study (that Judy cited) doesn't say anything new -- yes, a lot of men were circumcised between the 1940s-1970s and it (thankfully) started to decrease in the 1980s. We already know this. The rate of men cut at birth decreased as the 1980s progressed (greatly due to the first 'intactivists' who started speaking out in the late 1970s). The fact that this small sample of ADULT MEN surveyed revealed a 79% circumcised rate (of those men returning the survey) does NOT change or impact the rate of newborns circumcised in any given year in the U.S. According to the CDC this rate has NEVER been higher than 65% in 1980 and today is down just below 50%. This study is also NOT a reliable representation of all U.S. males currently alive today.
Was this "American Baby" piece really written by someone who does not understand survey research and the way statistics are presented?
Making a blanket statement about the CDC and presenting the numbers as such is an outright lie.
Why "American Baby" ignores the 2nd part of the study that shows NO correlation between infection & circumcision is also cause for question.
The final line in the study's abstract repeats what ALL the other medical studies on circumcision and STDs have shown: "Circumcision was not associated with HSV-2 infection."
I studied this topic for 3 years in graduate school, looked at EVERY disease of the prepuce organ (in women and men), wrote my dissertation on the topic, and know the circumcision research inside and out. "American Baby" is presenting mis-truths and outright lies and needs to print a correction and apology to all American parents they are lying to AND the CDC who they are misrepresenting.
See my full response to this magazine feature here: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/american-baby-magazine-circumcision.html
ARRRRRGH! Too angry...can't write coherently...>:(
I also wrote a VERY LONG, VERY nasty letter to Judy....I have yet to hear back....I was FURIOUS, FURIOUS, FURIOUS!!!!
Unbelievable! I can't believe they are going to stand behind that!
79% of adult men and 79% of newborn boys are SO not even close to the same thing. This is such an obvious mistake I can't believe they are even defending it.
This is a GREAT example of why you shouldn't trust ANYONE with your child's health. Parents need to start taking resonsibility for their own children's health.
:stepping off soapbox:
she's talking about men, grown men, not babies born today. WOW, that's horrible, especially if any parents were influenced by the article. My youngest boy is 5 and i believe even back then it was almost 50/50.
Yes maybe 79% of MEN are circ'd but that doesn't show the trend that only about 55% of BABIES are now being circ'd. I feel like I can never trust many parenting magazines because I feel like their "facts" can be persuaded by the people who pay the bills.
Now, I hope everyone doesn't jump all over me for asking this, but was it wrong to circumcise my son? I never did research on the subject when my son was born (4 years ago), I just assumed since my husband was circumcised, my son would be too. Is this not the "norm" anymore? Obviously most of you are against it, but I'm curious as to why. Thanks :)
Hey Jill,
I "think" the norm nowadays is about 50/50. I was totally going to circumcise my son too. My husband was and I thought every did it so I was going to also. But I did some researched and learned that its not necessary or needed, so I decided not to get it done. So, that's why I'm against it- because there no need for it, so I don't see the point in it.
You'll probably get lots of other responses too :)
This article made me FURIOUS when I read it. Thank you for writing in to the magazine.
Jill, I'm against circumcision because I believe that is is unnecessary cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting, usually unanesthesized infant. No medical organization in the world reccomends it & some condemn it. Many people believe it is a human rights violation. The US is the only country where it's still routinely done & even there the rates are, thankfully, falling. They'd be falling faster, but doctors there are extremely unethical on this topic & don't properly inform parents that it's risky & unnecessary. It's wonderful that your willing to ask questions about it.
What a bunch of crap. Saying that a number of men had a procedure done in the 70's is NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE to saying 79% of babies BORN TODAY are being done.... the wording in that little box doesn't just suggest, it directly states with its present tense language that the 79% is a current stat.
Dear Judith Nolte, Editor:
I am writing about an incorrect statistic given in the July 2009 issue of American Baby magazine (page 18). This short article states that "79 percent of newborn boys are circumcised in the U.S.." That statistic is incorrect. According to the the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is an agency of the Centers for Disease Control, 56.1 percent of newborn males in the U.S. were circumcised in 2006.
See: http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/
According to a 2006 report by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP), "the most common procedures performed on infants included routine procedures, such as circumcision (performed on 24.9 percent of all infants, or 47.8 percent of all male infants). .. (page 33) The 47.8 percent figure is for inhospital patient care.
See: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/factsandfigures/HAR_2006.pdf
This article also states that newborns who are circumcised "have a lower risk of developing urinary tract infections in their first year and STD's later in life." The American Academy of Pediatrics in 1999 stated that "the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%)."
Concerning STDs, the AAP stated that "evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to STD in general is complex and conflicting", and that "behavioral factors appear to be far more important than circumcision status." The AAP did not recommende routine circumcision.
A correction needs to be made in the next issue of American Baby so as not to mislead parents into thinking that the U.S. circumcision rate today is nearly 23% higher than it actually is! The circumcision rate among adult men in the U.S. may be higher because of routine circumcision in the past, but the fact remains that fewer and fewer newborn males are being circumcised today, as more and more parents are becoming educated about the harms of circumcision and the function and value of the foreskin.
Sincerely,
Petrina Fadel
Wow, I cannot believe that they took a population sample of 6000 GROWN men and then made it a statistic for newborn circumcision. Shame on them.
I know circumcision is one of those topics that people can feel strongly about. Jill - of course it is not wrong to circumcise your son! Every mom does what is best for their child. My husband and I chose to circumcise our two boys (2.5 and 11 months). It is a personal decision and every momma does what works for their children and family!
Actually Kylie, with all due respect. It is wrong to circumcise babies :( They are not consenting to such permanent body modification in their genitals. I agree with you, it is a very personal decision: the CHILD's personal decision.
Hi Samantha,
You made so many valid points! I agree, you can't believe everything you read and you must do your own research to get to the very bottom of something. I really enjoyed this post, as well as your blog! I recently discovered your blog and gave you an award. Go to the following to collect:
http://www.thetamom.com
This is why I don't like American Baby. It isn't the first time they've given out misleading information and it won't be the last. After my "free year" subscription ran out, I opted to order Mothering Magazine and it has been full of useful information and always very accurate. Good for you for going to bat and trying to get the wrong info changed!!
Wow, I read this and I have to say this has gotten ridiculous.
Yes, there were skewed statistics but the real wrong being done is the judgment. Why do you say things to hurt each other? Do you want people to feel awful about circumcision? If you do it you do and if you don't you don't. No one is wrong.
I used to be shocked at how many people attack others for their parenting decisions and now I see that people will do it no matter what.
How do you feel when you are the one on the side someone sees as wrong? Whether it be circumcision or anything else you should not tell someone they are wrong and that they have done something horrible.
Do you remember judge not lest ye be judged?
Two similarly idiotic things were said in the comments:
"Every mom does what is best for their child."
"No one is wrong."
Really? Wow. No one ever does anything wrong? Everything everyone does is right? Every mother does the absolute best thing for their child?
But surely violent criminals do things that are wrong. Surely women who kill their children are not doing the best thing for their kids?
Oh, okay--you mean everyone except for violent criminals does the right thing. But...really? The world is made up of violent criminals and perfect people? Mothers are criminally abusive or negligent or they parent in th most ideal fashion? There isn't any middle ground: people who do things that are kinda bad even if not illegal? Mothers who really don't do the best by their kids, but they are not bad enough to be arrested or have their kids taken away by the authorities?
Black and white world...amazing.
Alan
I think the comment made about no one is wrong was about circumcision and I see now why they said judge not lest ye be judged... the next person just jumped straight to judging and called their comments idiotic. Can we just let it be?
It just so happens that I received a letter from my state's (Maryland's) Medicaid office with the number of circumcisions performed and paid for by Medicaid. For the past 5 years it's been about 60% in 2008 it was 56% The number of boys born in 2008 through Medicaid was about 15,000. So that is probably a good sample of the state. The 80% are boys from a different generation. Here is a link to a picture of the letter I recieved yesterday.
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5633/dsc0414b.jpg
I'm closing the comments on this.
My blog is not a place to be rude to others about a choice they did or did not make. I welcome questions and disagreeing but not rude behavior and I am NOT a fan of anonymous rude comments.
I believe each family/mother does what is best for their child and their family wether it be about circumcision, vaccines, tv watching, eating habits, whatever.
Thanks for all your thoughts on this, we'll be moving on now. :)
New comments are not allowed.