Parents Magazine

[lovemybubus]

Page 42 Issue: Nov 2008

Written in red ink with a little star next to it.
"Two new studies show that circumcision reduces a boy's future risk of HIV by 65% and HPV by 36%"

I'm writing to them, anyone else interested?

https://secure.parents.com/common/pr...equestid=16330

I believe this link should work for comments.

[Fay]

I'm pretty sure that my intact toddler is not sexually active, so his risk of HIV & HPV is currently 0%.

[2lilsweetfoxes]

All I can say is thank goodness my dh does *not* read that magazine. All I need is him to have ammo to use against me in the to circ or not to circ argument if this bean is a boy...

[Nandi]

I wrote a comment: the African studies are methodologically flawed, in that the circumcised men had a whole 1-2 months less time in which to get infected, they got free condoms, and counseling. The AIDS infection rates in the US where there is a high rate of circumcision is higher than the rates in Europe where circumcision is extremely rare. Circumcision is NOT a protection against AIDS, condoms are.

Lets make it all pro intact comments!

[Claire and Boys]

Have to love the way they twist wording.

As far as I understood it, even if those studies were right, it only decreases the risk per encounter. Not overall, in a life time. The most it may do is prolong the inevitable if someone is sleeping around without using protection.

[Greg B]

Originally Posted by Claire and Boys

Have to love the way they twist wording.

As far as I understood it, even if those studies were right, it only decreases the risk per encounter. Not overall, in a life time. The most it may do is prolong the inevitable if someone is sleeping around without using protection.

Exactly right. And usually ( didn't read this particular article) they use the statistical results in a biased way as well. Usually they say something like a 50% reduction in contracting AIDS. But this is out of context. they should be reporting it as

circ’d men had a 1.6% chance of contracting aids, while the normal men had a 3.4% chance. Or if you were circ’d you had an incidence of 16 men out of a 1,000, while normal men had an incidence of 34 men out of 1,000.

Regards

[tammyswanson]

ERRGH...so by their flawed "logic", there should be no STD's in the USA. Right.

Ugh, I got that magazine 4 times 'for free'..they were trying to get me to actually pay for a subscription. I wonder if the person who is the CEO of that mag is pro circ...hmm. I bet they are.

The link took me to a sign in page, fyi.

I'm going to tell them that their data is flawed and that they are spreading dangerous misinformation that can make people think that they are free to have unprotected sex under the myth that being cut somehow protects from STD's. That is really irresponsible of them to say that.

I didn't find a link to comment on the issue, all they have is some customer service link, and I don't subscribe to their magazine.

[MaryJaneLouise]

Here's the "full article" that little un-factoid was pulled from

http://www.parents.com/baby/care/new...-circumcision/

[LadyCatherine185]

nak

Her poor little boy! Circ'ed for a UTI??? And where did she get her misinformation that you should retract and clean an infant at every bath!? No wonder her son had recurrent infections! :

[listipton]

It makes me mad that mainstream mags put such bias info out there for moms. My library sometimes recieves double copies and I usually take them home to view and when I read that little red "fact" I was highly irritated. I'll be commenting for sure. Hopefully they'll print one of our letters....