Quote:
|
Originally Posted by colaga
Is this that same study which Lancet refused to publish in their journal?
|
Yes, it is.
But, there are still some very significant problems with this. They reported on another public media site the reason it was *supposedly* not published by Lancet. Lancet does not publically disclose why they decline a study so, the only ones that would know this information would be the authors of the study. This tells me that the authors are going on a publicity campaign to get media attention for a study that has no legs.
It was also reported that it was published in the journal "Public Library of Science" or "PLoS." This is a journal on the internet only, is not associated with any medical organization in the world and they had to pay a publication fee to get it published there. This tells me they "shopped" it to all of the legitimate medical journals around the world and were declined publication in all of them and were desperate to get it published somewhere, anywhere. It should also be noted that PLoS was only established a year ago last week. Certainly not much credibility here!
It is also important to realize that this study only ran less than a year. The typical run for these studies is 3 years. The men who were circumcised to participate in the study would have been out of sexual "action" for 6 weeks or more and 6 weeks out of less than a year is a significant amount of time. Add to that, the HIV/AIDS virus will not show up in tests for a month to six months after the initial infection. That adds up to a huge problem for the study and it's accuracy.
Also, the actual difference between the infection rate was a measely +/-1%. It was reported as 60% which was accurate but deceptive. "When liars figure, figures lie."
In Feburary it was reported that the study was ending because the circumcised men were contracting AIDS at a higher rate than the intact men and then miraculously, the reporting turned around and they said that it was the other way around in July. I wondered how that could be? Well I think I've got that figured out. With the circumcised men out of action for a significant time at the begining, it would be reasonably expected that their infection rate would lag behind that of the intact men and the study was going well. But as the time span increased and the men circumcised for the study became sexually active again, they started rapidly catching up with the intact men and the study was ended while it still favored circumcision. I suspect this because the authors concluded in Feburary that although the circumcised men were getting AIDS at a higher rate that "circumcision may be an effective intervention" in controlling the spread of the epidemic.
I also believe that the authors of the study had an investment in circumcision. One of the authors, the son of a mohel, had made many public statements connecting circumcision with AIDS resistance and was also unemployed and searching for a job at the time the study team was being organized. He also had many writings on the subject in HIV/AIDS publications and this study showing no connection between circumcision would have destroyed any credibility he had in those areas.
When I look at all of the factors, the whole thing just stinks and reeks of deception, cover-up and pre-conceived agenda by a group of publicity seekers.
Frank
I am sure there are contact e-mail addresses somewhere for those who wish to give their feedback.
