An interesting Question

[Fellow Traveler]

Dave over at Circumcision And HIV has asked an interesting question about the recently released HIV trials which looked at Male to Female transmission.

Read what he has to say here:

The basic question, why didn't they let the experiment run to completion? Surprisingly, ethical approval for this kind of experiment had been given (or else the study wouldn't have started). The intervention group was infecting their partners at a rate approaching 50%. There was no clear benefit and if there was no clear detriment, why not finish? What would have happened if it had run to completion? Would we have found that circumcised HIV+ men were a greater danger to their partners?

Thoughts?

[robertandenith]

ITA with you

[fruitful womb]

Seems like they were hiding something... Clearly, this "study" is fabricated propaganda. Its not 'scientifically proven' unless the experiment was completed.

<rant>

The fact that these "researchers" are using Africans like they're a lab rat PISSES ME THE #$%^ OFF!!!

The money could be better spent on education, producing clean water, harvesting fresh produce, and create trade but noooooo they want to reduce their penis THEN let them die of starvation... or have AIDS kill them first.

THIS IS GENOCIDAL!

[PuppyFluffer]

Originally Posted by fruitful womb

Seems like they were hiding something... Clearly, this "study" is fabricated propaganda. Its not 'scientifically proven' unless the experiment was completed.

<rant>

The fact that these "researchers" are using Africans like they're a lab rat PISSES ME THE #$%^ OFF!!!

The money could be better spent on education, producing clean water, harvesting fresh produce, and create trade but noooooo they want to reduce their penis THEN let them die of starvation... or have AIDS kill them first.

THIS IS GENOCIDAL!

Yes. And the pharmaceutical indistry conducts vaccine trials there as well on the population. I believe they do indeed consider them "lab rats".