Studies used in the latest AAP policy statement? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 7 Old 08-30-2012, 02:21 PM - Thread Starter
 
Contented73's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I was listening to a radio interview with Dr. Dean Edell and Dr. Doug Diekema (out of San Francisco - not sure how to link it) and during the show they mentioned that there were 14 studies which had been used to come up with the latest statement, the the "three main ones" being the African studies.  Does anyone know which studies they used?  I would like to be able to reference them myself.  My understanding is that there was not actually any new research that was used.  Is this correct?

 

As a side note, I felt somewhat disappointed with Dr. Edell's performance on the show.  Yes, I realize he is not in favor of RIC, but I felt he was a bit disjointed and often didn't clearly finish a thought or sentence, so that he didn't wind up making a very strong case in a few different instances.  I did appreciate some of his bridge-building tactics - giving some credit to the AAP.  I myself would not be able to be so kind, but I do think it is important in these types of debate to show that you are not a total radical, and instead simply present clear arguments supporting our position.

Contented73 is offline  
#2 of 7 Old 08-30-2012, 07:34 PM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

I don't have links.  I do believe though, that the studies they are saying they used, are the ones in Africa from 2005 & 2007.  The same studies that were halted early.  The same studies that are often quoted as reducing the risk of acquiring HIV as 60-70% less.  

 

These "studies" have been knocked down over & over again.  I think it's interesting that people (all kinds including these "doctors") use these "studies" to justify circumcision, yet we've had the biggest circ & HIV experiement in America going on for years.  If circ is so good at protecting everyone from HIV, then why do we have the highest (or one of the highest, not sure which) infection rates in the Western world as well as the highest circ rates?  All it takes is for people to actually *think*.  That rarely happens though.

 

I imagine if you searched here, you'll find links to the actually studies.

 

Best wishes,

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is offline  
#3 of 7 Old 08-31-2012, 10:09 AM
 
erinsuzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norwalk Ohio
Posts: 63
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I wonder if they were the same African studies that Bill Gates funded...

 

headscratch.gif


 novaxnocirc.gif cd.gif   homebirth.jpg    lady.gif of 4:bikenew.gif5 yr    blahblah.gif    4 yr   sleepytime.gif   2 yr   baby.gif  2 mo
erinsuzy is offline  
#4 of 7 Old 09-01-2012, 07:56 AM - Thread Starter
 
Contented73's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

It's frustrating that no one seems to know the answer to this.  Yes, they admitted they included the African studies, but they also stated that there were many other recent (and more local) studies which were used.  I feel like I can't adequately fight this without being more knowledgeable about the research which was used.  I think it makes us look uneducated when we keep (rightly) bashing the African studies, only to have people mention the plenty of other studies which were also used.

 

Just to clarify -- I am 1000% opposed to circ and feel I can debate circumcision quite well, but specifically I want to be able to address the AAPs decision making process involved in this particular new policy statement.  Maybe the best thing to do is to try to get the info directly from the AAP.

Contented73 is offline  
#5 of 7 Old 09-01-2012, 09:52 AM
 
mama24-7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: with the dust bunnies
Posts: 2,436
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contented73 View Post
Just to clarify -- I am 1000% opposed to circ and feel I can debate circumcision quite well, but specifically I want to be able to address the AAPs decision making process involved in this particular new policy statement.  Maybe the best thing to do is to try to get the info directly from the AAP.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if the additional studies information was intentionally left out for this very reason.  Of course, if you do find out, I'd be interested to know more about them as well.

 

Sus


Baby the babies while they're babies so they don't need babying for a lifetime.
mama24-7 is offline  
#6 of 7 Old 09-01-2012, 10:07 AM
 
tennisdude23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 415
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The researchers of the African trials authored a number of other studies in addition to the RCTs.  However, the data for these studies was taken from the RCT to booster claims that circ. has an effect on syphilis, HPV, sexual pleasure etc.  The point is they just rehashed the same old data and called it new research, which it really was not.  Hope this helps.  There were no significant new findings in the AAP report regarding UTIs, penile cancer, etc.  So, this really came down to the HIV claims, which don't even really apply to US infants.  I think emailing the AAP for an explanation is a great idea!

 

PS: The AAP only selectively looked at data from 1995-2010.  The team from 1999 looked at 40 years of research and I think saw the apparent pattern that every time some study shows a benefit, its pretty much debunked within a generation. 

tennisdude23 is offline  
#7 of 7 Old 09-05-2012, 08:59 PM
 
Fellow Traveler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Formerly JWhispers
Posts: 1,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contented73 View Post

I was listening to a radio interview with Dr. Dean Edell and Dr. Doug Diekema (out of San Francisco - not sure how to link it) and during the show they mentioned that there were 14 studies which had been used to come up with the latest statement, the the "three main ones" being the African studies.  Does anyone know which studies they used?  I would like to be able to reference them myself.  My understanding is that there was not actually any new research that was used.  Is this correct?

 

As a side note, I felt somewhat disappointed with Dr. Edell's performance on the show.  Yes, I realize he is not in favor of RIC, but I felt he was a bit disjointed and often didn't clearly finish a thought or sentence, so that he didn't wind up making a very strong case in a few different instances.  I did appreciate some of his bridge-building tactics - giving some credit to the AAP.  I myself would not be able to be so kind, but I do think it is important in these types of debate to show that you are not a total radical, and instead simply present clear arguments supporting our position.

 

OK, so like tennisdude23 I haven't posted here in a long time but I thought I would try and help you shed some light on your question. The 14 studies that you are referencing are all studies which pertain to HIV and circumcision, all were done in Africa. The actual policy statement cites over 200 articles but fortunately it's a pretty poor piece of work. I will focus this reply on the HIV question you raised, feel free to ask further question. So to start, all fourteen studies they are talking about did take place in Africa, the primary ones are the 3 big ones you always hear about. There was one study (not being counted in the 14) that looked at a small group of high risk heterosexuals in the US, those people who had a partner who was HIV positive but that isn't a description for the general population. Another study in the set, not included in the 14, is a sort of cost analysis where they try and guess whether circumcision would work in the US. It is based on this study that they attempt to make their predictions. And what it gets down to is this, I can provide a link and we can discuss it if you want,

 

* Lifetime risk of HIV for a man in the US 2.1% (if Intact)

* Lifetime risk of HIV for a man in the US 1.8% (if not-intact)

* Difference in risk? 0.3% lifetime

 

Now I think that is still inflated because they looked at the risk for ALL men no matter sexual orientation and MSM have the highest risk by far. If you eliminate the MSM from this, overall you're looking at a difference in risk of between 0.1% and 0.2% lifetime. And that's what it's all based on. So you see the proper question to ask someone when they say, "but it reduces your HIV risk by 50%" is what is my lifetime risk of HIV? 

 

I hope that helps. Also, Hugh over at circumstitions has been working on an annotated version of the AAP statement to help you dig through the BS: http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/aap-12-anno.pdf just click on the little yellow boxes for the additional information you need.

Fellow Traveler is offline  
Reply

Tags
Circumcision

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off