Why Africa?

[texanatheart]

I'm honestly curious...Why is it that all of the studies on circumcision and the health 'benefits' that I see referenced in articles are studies that take place in Africa, on Africans? Why don't I ever hear of studies such as these that are done in the US or other industrialized countries? Are they out there and no one mentions them? Or are they not done?

I ask because I came across this article yesterday, and I realized it's always about Africa.

[rhiandmoi]

A huge majority of men in Africa are not already circucised first of all. This allows a very large study with controls and multiple behavior cohorts. Secondly there is a very high infection rate for HIV and other STIs. This means that a difference in infection rate is more likely to be from the study variable than luck.

[moonglowmama]

That's interesting. Because I keep hearing that the rates of circ here in the USA are about 50/50 and that we have very high rates of STDs, so really, why aren't "they" doing studies on our population?

[rhiandmoi]

I think that is the rate of infant circumcision, the numbers of adults who are circumcised is not there yet.

[SleeplessMommy]

Clinical trials that do not meet USA ethics standards can be done in Africa, no problem

[texanatheart]

Originally Posted by moonglowmama

That's interesting. Because I keep hearing that the rates of circ here in the USA are about 50/50 and that we have very high rates of STDs, so really, why aren't "they" doing studies on our population?

Hmmm...That just made me think of this...These studies are done using men who were previously not circumcised (ie, left intact at birth). Shouldn't studies be done on populations where infants are either circ'ed or left intact...and then disease/infection rates among them? Not that the Africa studies are valid/accurate, but seems like if you want to support routine infant circumcision, you wouldn't study men who were/weren't circ'ed as adults... Seems like more of an epidemiological study should be done?

[baybee]

Can you imagine if researchers came to N. America and offered $100 to women to have their clitoral hood surgically amputated? It would be ridiculous. In Africa, where a man can earn enough to feed his family for a year by participating in this nonsense, he can be persuaded to undergo a nice N. American scalpel. It is the height of white imperialism as far as I'm concerned and the med journals that publish the "results" should be ashamed of themselves.

Here's a good article to read about mgm studies and AIDS:

http://www.icgi.org/2008/08/aids-200...ision-and-hiv/

[hakunangovi]

Rhiandmoi, not sure if I interpreted your post correctly, but there is a much higher percentage of adults in the U.S. that are circumcised than the current neonatal rate of 50%, since in the '70s to '90s the Drs in the U.S. mutilated every baby penis they could.

Certain parts of Africa also have a high rate of circumcision, since it is practiced as a tribal "comming of age" ritual. My suspicion is that these "studies" (and I use the word very loosely) are conducted there for two reasons. One, it is easy to "buy" someone to participate, and secondly proper methodology can be manipulated to achieve a desired result without someone scrutinising how it was done.

[navetdi]

Well, the studies are being published in international, peer reviewed journals, so conducting the study in Africa wouldn't impact their ability to manipulate methodologies.

[Fellow Traveler]

Actually, there are several better questions the first is considering the significant differences between many parts of Africa and the first world (from an anthropological perspective and others) why are these studies being used to push for infant circumcision in the US. Even if we were to say, for example, that there truly was a 50% reduction it is of little practical value to most people outside high prevalence areas. Second, as far as Africa is concerned, why focus limited resources on infants. Rather if you were going to offer the procedure why not only offer it to older teens an adults, those most at risk. In a place were resources are tight for more reasons than just that this is the only ethical approach.

ETA: And why Africa? Because it's cheap and they'll be able to find a lot of volunteers considering they intended on getting circumcised anyway. In return they got a paid, free health care, and some other things too. But also they need to conduct these experiments in a [locations of high prevalence, extreme poverty, and little education] to see results or focus on people at the highest risk. It's sort of like why they fill a lab rat up with more sacuren (sp) then anyone could consume in their lifetime and observe that it causes cancer.

ETA: Fixed 'real dump'

[calpurnia]

let's not refer to africa as a "real dump", please.

[tlh]

I wonder what the HIV/AIDS rate is among the men and their partners who were born during the time when 90% of boys and some girls were circumcised in The US.If the studies are right they would have the lowest infection rates.



Did anyone see this?

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/bond-star-...waziland/19270

Bond star draws attention to AIDS in Swaziland


Moore, known for playing James Bond and a UNICEF goodwill ambassador since 1991, said in an interview Monday he was donating proceeds from a concert to Israelis training Swazis to perform circumcisions. Circumcision has been shown to cut the risk of contracting the AIDS virus by as much as 60 percent.