Circumcision helps the least; researchers surprised *rolls eyes*

[Fellow Traveler]

http://www.circumstitions.com/news/news34.html#lima

[nerdymom]

Condom use and ART coverage, alone or in combination, were found to reduce new HIV infections by from 64% to 95% by 2025 and to reduce mortality by 10% to 34%. Circumcision brought about a 3% to 13% reduction in new HIV infections and a 2% to 4% reduction in mortality; according to Lima, its impact “was overshadowed when combined with the other interventions.

OK have to count to ten before I say something I shouldn't... :

[laohaire]

I don't even have to be an intactivist to say... "DUH"

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by nerdymom

OK have to count to ten before I say something I shouldn't... :

What I still don't understand is how they found statistical significance at all. I know I have much to learn in this subject, but it seems to me that the immunological properties of the foreskin would mean a lower level of infection.

Why are they finding statistical significance from circumcision?

[Fellow Traveler]

I know it just boggles the mind. Why anyone would think that circumcision would have any impact let alone one that would rival or even come
close condom or art use; it just boggles the mind.

[readytobedone]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

Why are they finding statistical significance from circumcision?

unless the men are being randomly assigned to a circumcised vs. intact group, then there is probably some other variable at play. for example, maybe circumcised men are more likely to be religious, so less likely to be promiscuous--that kind of thing.

[Ruthla]

Hmm. Do I file this under "D" for "Duh" or "O" for "obvious"?

[Juvysen]

It's so bizarre to me that they're set on this. I'm curious how many americans with HIV are circumcised. I'd bet most of them...

[Fyrestorm]

I remember a bumper sticker I saw once...it pertains to the USA only of course:

"If circumcision prevents AIDS, then why are all my friends dead?"

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by readytobedone

unless the men are being randomly assigned to a circumcised vs. intact group, then there is probably some other variable at play. for example, maybe circumcised men are more likely to be religious, so less likely to be promiscuous--that kind of thing.

Ok I find it sad that they aren't randomly assigned. That's bad data collection!

[Fellow Traveler]

Actually this was a mathematical simulation, no real people involved.

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

Actually this was a mathematical simulation, no real people involved.

[nerdymom]

I just, just, mhj bn dfjkvgn fas /ksnfdjkfn /!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEED A 'DOH' SMILIE! Because really, : just isn't cutting it for me. Six hours later this is still irritating the poop outta me.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

I am not sure if that was a good or a bad eye roll. I expected more of a

Originally Posted by nerdymom

I just, just, mhj bn dfjkvgn fas /ksnfdjkfn /!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEED A 'DOH' SMILIE! Because really, : just isn't cutting it for me. Six hours later this is still irritating the poop outta me.

What's bothering you? Actually this is a good thing. Consider that this shows that the roll of circumcision is a distant third in a country with the highest prevalence. What impact would it be in most other countries? Answer: What all of us here have always known, practically none.

[nerdymom]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

What's bothering you? Actually this is a good thing. Consider that this shows that the roll of circumcision is a distant third in a country with the highest prevalence. What impact would it be in most other countries? Answer: What all of us here have always known, practically none.

I'm annoyed because DUH DUH DUH using a condom is more effective that genital mutilation duh and they are surprised at the findings? Quite frankly I'm surprised there was as high a correlation as there was. And though sure, hopefully this will quell some of the circmania, I am a bit annoyed because the analysis shows that there was a correlation at all, which can still be used by proponents to promote RIC.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by nerdymom

I'm annoyed because DUH DUH DUH using a condom is more effective that genital mutilation duh and they are surprised at the findings? Quite frankly I'm surprised there was as high a correlation as there was. And though sure, hopefully this will quell some of the circmania, I am a bit annoyed because the analysis shows that there was a correlation at all, which can still be used by proponents to promote RIC.

I just want to explain what they did. They created a simulation where they assumed circumcision had a protective effect. The protective effect they assumed was the one that has been talked about the last two years. So they weren't testing it specifically. The real point of this story is that even assuming that what those quacks say about circ/HIV is true, it's overall impact would be very small. Even more so in places like the US. But we already knew that. I hope that others will look at these results and others like it that are sure to come and think twice about circumcision and funding it.

[Freud]

Originally Posted by claddaghmom

Ok I find it sad that they aren't randomly assigned. That's bad data collection!

Not sure if you were joking or not, but it is very unlikely that circumcision would ever be randomly assigned. That would mean that the study would have to be a longitudinal one that began at birth.

[Juvysen]

I just found an article that said when you control for number of prostitutes in the country, it eliminates the protective effect of circumcision. I thought that was interesting...

[mysticmomma]

Originally Posted by Juvysen

I just found an article that said when you control for number of prostitutes in the country, it eliminates the protective effect of circumcision. I thought that was interesting...

Link please?

[Juvysen]

Originally Posted by mysticmomma

Link please?

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-mco062007.php

It's a couple years old...