This is a little better: NYT article

[beru]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/we...w/30rabin.html

[Fellow Traveler]

This is not a bad article, not great, but not bad. In someways, I am glad they ran the first article last week and got everyone riled up. If it had been this softball article there might not have been as much noise. I think this article is educational to those who are ignorant of circumcision. For instance, it:


* Informs the original purpose, to prevent masturbation and control boy's (and the men they become) sexuality.
* It shows the chain of conditions circumcision was thought to protect from.
* They put forth our objections very prominently.
* As part of the education they point out that American's are unique in this obsession.
* One of the 'lead' circumcision researchers is quoted as casting doubt on its utility in the US.

[vachi73]

However ... it also touts the so-called 50% reduction in risk of female --> male transmission found in Uganda ... and suggests that the reduction might be GREATER than 50%. To me, those studies were so flawed, it's malpractice to recite this statistic and act as if that could be extrapolated. And, at the very least, wasn't the reduction from 3.2% to 1.6% infection rate?? Saying 50% reduction may be mathematically accurate, but it's also misleading.

This article is a step in the right direction...this was the only part that really bothered me.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by vachi73

However ... it also touts the so-called 50% reduction in risk of female --> male transmission found in Uganda ... and suggests that the reduction might be GREATER than 50%. To me, those studies were so flawed, it's malpractice to recite this statistic and act as if that could be extrapolated. And, at the very least, wasn't the reduction from 3.2% to 1.6% infection rate?? Saying 50% reduction may be mathematically accurate, but it's also misleading.

This article is a step in the right direction...this was the only part that really bothered me.

I agree I am sick of hearing about relative risk reduction too. They should provide absolute risk for Amercan males like th Australian AFAO who recently published the lifetime risk of HIV to a heteo non iv user Australian man is .02%. So a 50% change is essentially meaningless.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by vachi73

However ... it also touts the so-called 50% reduction in risk of female --> male transmission found in Uganda ... and suggests that the reduction might be GREATER than 50%. To me, those studies were so flawed, it's malpractice to recite this statistic and act as if that could be extrapolated. And, at the very least, wasn't the reduction from 3.2% to 1.6% infection rate?? Saying 50% reduction may be mathematically accurate, but it's also misleading.

This article is a step in the right direction...this was the only part that really bothered me.

Agree completely. But the lead researcher on those trials stating that it shouldn't be promoted helps A LOT. I'm quite surprised he said that, actually.

The sad fact is, until new studies come out refuting the findings of these three trials, they're going to be taken as gospel, even though there are already older studies that contradict them.

This article was great, it detailed the twists and turns of circ's history in the US and showed how it has been forced and abused for twisted reasons and lies.