Anyone read Newsweek this week? - Page 3

[elelvee]

I think the article will have an effect different from what the authors intended. We at MDC don't know how many people will look at the article and think the same thing as we did. Many people could be looking at that issue and notice, consciously, the text with its calm tone of concern paired with the photo of an infant who is suffering.

I have to wonder about our society. Placing photo evidence of torture on the first page of a paper, proudly...and getting away with it.

I like to imagine that photo with a caption like, "a child suffering the sypmtoms of AIDS," or something. I had this same feeling of inappropriate comment in Science News recently. When I looked at this Newsweek one I had the strange feeling like I was looking at a parody as done by the Onion.
.

[mighty-mama]

My dad's fiance had the nerve to leave this article wide open for me to review while we were staying at her house this weekend.

It was ironic as we had a conversation on circ that very morning, she is for circ. And you guessed it a **RN** She actually told me that it's okay to circ an infant once they are born, because they are really still an extention of their mother. What the ? She then mentioned it's very traumatic to have done when older. (**So who's the dumb ? to do it when their older anyway?)

She too had to mention about the problems older men have if left intact... Yeah I told her I found it ironic that the only men you would hear of problems with staying intact are Americans. I then informed her that maybe our "American" medical staff are ignorant and should learn about the research given to stay intact.

**She is so dumb, she didn't realize I just slammed her...

[Frankly Speaking]

I've just recently found something that seems to confirm what I've been suspecting all along because of a press release about this project in Febuary.

That press release indicated that the study was actually ended because of an accelerated rate of infection of the circumcised men. I found another version of the report that appears to confirm my suspicions.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/per...-0020298-ST001

My hypothesis was that the circumcised men were recuperating during the initial stages of the project and were not able to have sex for up to 6 weeks and that would be a considerable influence in the infection rate. It appears that is what happened.

The men were checked for AIDS at the begining and again at 3 months and at 12 months. At the 3 month follow-up, the ratio of circumcised men infected to intact men infected was 1/5. 9 months later at the 12 month follow-up, the ratio was 1/2. That is an incredibly higher infection rate for the circumcised men. At that rate, if the study had not been stopped, the number of men that were circumcised that were infected during the study period would have surpassed the number of intact men who were infected before the end of the scheduled study period.

It's often been said about this issue that the more you learn, the worse it gets. Apparently, that's true of the people involved in this. They are so keen to promote circumcision that they will fabricate evidence that is professionally imoral and unethical and actually may leave circumcised men at a greater risk of AIDS infection just to promote their agenda.

They also recommended that African women be indoctrinated to insist that their partners be circumcised. That's just what we need to do, export some of our phobias to Africa.



Frank

[TortelliniMama]

So, in other words, rather than circ'ing our our sons to reduce their risk of getting HIV, we need to arrange for someone to severely injure their penises every 6 weeks for the entirety of their sexual lives.

Of course, that probably sounds like a dandy idea to some of the proponents of circ. It sounds like something that would be right up their twisted alley.