Circumcision helps the least; researchers surprised *rolls eyes* - Page 2

[mysticmomma]

Originally Posted by Juvysen

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

It's a couple years old...

Interesting, thanks!

[nerdymom]

Originally Posted by Fellow Traveler

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.

Oh! Thank you! This is a good thing to know. Thank you for explaining, I was confused.

[Night_Nurse]

Originally Posted by 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...

I haven't taken care of male adult patients in a medical/surgical setting for a long time but...every HIV+ male I ever remember catheterizing was circumcised.

[Nandi]

One reason the studies were flawed was that the circumcised men had less of a time frame for even having sex, so there was less opportunity for infection as they recovered from surgery.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

[Juvysen]

Originally Posted by Nandi

One reason the studies were flawed was that the circumcised men had less of a time frame for even having sex, so there was less opportunity for infection as they recovered from surgery.
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...Statement.html

So, maybe the real way to stop HIV is to continually injure men who have it? I can't even believe this made it past peer review.