- Joined
- Apr 11, 2019
Yes, the study of 5500 people needed just 180 more canadians to throw out the old result, lol.
You know, what let's do it. But let's not half arse it. Let's circumcise everyone. Let's recircumcise those that already have been. We can make everyone even cleaner.
Well, when the author of a study states that they have bias and was essentially trying to find reasons to support that bias vs. a study done relatively neutral in a population w/ adequate exposure to both, and it's so overwhelming, I think it holds a bit of credence (that p=.001 means there's a 1/1000 chance of that result happening by pure luck of the draw in respondants). But you're taking this way more seriously than intended, homie.
Last edited: