Evaluation of alternative methods of preventing UTI in infancy is required. It is left as an exercise for the reader to put one and one together and figure out that given since girls are far more likely to get UTIs circumcision is a ludicrous answer to the latter question. In return they are allowed to point out it answers an fairly irrelevant question. More information on the effect of simple hygienic interventions is needed. That would of course be the logical first step when trying to find out how to prevent UTIs.
Information is required on the incidence of circumcision that is truly needed in later childhood.
This refers to strange fact that a significant portion of the north american intact males 'needs' to be cut later, while this is virtually unheard of in other parts of the world. I was talking about in my previous post. My gripe is not about whether this claim is true or false, but these claims come and go, and there is no point in refuting them as they will simply be replaced by new claims. There is evidence that circumcision results in a reduction in the incidence of penile cancer and of HIV transmission. However, there is inadequate information to recommend circumcision as a public health measure to prevent these diseases.