Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I saw this article on the BBC that says they want to start promoting circ in Africa to reduce AIDS. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:<br><br><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5165118.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5165118.stm</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/hopmad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="hopping mad"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/hopmad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="hopping mad"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/hopmad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="hopping mad"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead"><br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/splat.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="splat"><br><br>
where's Frank? I know I've seen one of his posts that refutes this study but can't find it <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/greensad.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="greensad">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,870 Posts
I had to pop in and say hi, Becky - congrats on your pregnancy, I hadn't noticed your new siggy! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
IMO (sorry haven't bothered reading that link, it's late) whether it does or does not have any effect on AIDS is beside the point. THere are many proven public health and anti-poverty strategies which would be far more effective in the battle to save Africa from AIDS. This is just another way to ensure that the Majority World stays poor, and continues to be exploited by the Minority World. Lets just mutilate the baby boys. We might even get generous grants to do this work! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,037 Posts
It seriously makes me wonder what is going on when I read these articles <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">: . This is the same study from last year that was published in PLOS. There is no new news there. It appears as if the researchers in that study are putting out multiple press releases in hopes that some major newspapers will take ahold of it and write articles/advocate circumcision.<br><br>
However, this is the SAME highly flawed study which was denied publishment by EVERY reputable scientific journal for good reason.<br><br>
Frankly speaking, here is a quote from the past history of this:<br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;"><br>
The authors of the study have a long history of advocating circumcision and such a professional investment in it that not finding a correlation between HIV/AIDS would have amounted to professional suicide. There is also an apparent religious motivation behind this. Dr. Dean Edell noted in an on-the-air interview with radio personality Bill Handel that there was a significant Jewish influence among the researchers.<br><br>
The first I heard of the study was in Feb. 2005 when there was a news article that the project had been discontinued in the 12th month of what was to be a 2 year study because the infection rate among the circumcised participants was greater that the rate among the uncircumcised participants. None-the-less, the authors were stating that circumcision may be an effective intervention in the battle against AIDS. That was a ridiculous statement based on the stated results.<br><br>
Later in July, it was announced that the study was presented orally at the 3rd IAS conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and that it showed that circumcision reduced the transmission rate 60%. Suddenly, there was a complete change of the results of the study. How could that possibly be? Well, we were to find out later that this was nothing more than deception.<br><br>
In August, word leaked out that the prestigious medical journal of the British Medical Association, The Lancet, had refused to publish the study. The Lancet does not make public the reasons they decline publishing a study but the authors of this study released a 3rd press release giving some very weak excuse as second hand information. We still don’t know the real reason it was declined. However, the authors soldiered on searching for a publication that would publish the study and apparently found no respectable publication that would take it. In the mean time, it is apparent that they were monitoring internet chat and were responding to criticism by issuing more and more press releases. This type of publicity seeking is highly frowned on in the research community, yet these people have issued about 7 or 8 rounds of press releases thus far. In contrast, a study presented at the same IAS conference in Rio that shows that circumcised men are at greater risk of infection (<a href="http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002" target="_blank">http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002</a> ) and another that shows female circumcision (<a href="http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138" target="_blank">http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138</a> ) has a protective effect have generated virtually none of this breathless media hype.<br><br>
In October, another press release announced that the study had been peer reviewed and published in The Public Library of Science. (PLoS) Any neophyte journalist would have checked out PLoS and would have found that PLoS was just established in October a year ago as an on-line only journal and that their mission statement is to publish research of dubious value. Furthermore, respected medical journals are constantly on the search for content and will publish at no charge to the author. To the contrary, PLoS charges the author to have their studies published. PLoS has no standing and no respect in the scientific community and certainly no where near the respect that a journal like The Lancet would have. It is apparent that the authors shopped the study to all of the respected journals of the English speaking world and found no takers. Normally, this would have been the end of this study but not for these people. They had big money behind them. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided the money for the study and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides the funding for PLoS.<br><br>
Now, if you get into the research, it becomes more interesting. The men for the circumcised group were circumcised at the beginning of the study. In most cases, the men are warned to avoid sexual intercourse for 6 – 8 weeks post operative and are given injections that prevent erections to prevent pulling stitches or freshly healed wounds. In the first 4 months, the uncircumcised men were contracting AIDS at a much higher rate as could be expected. Between months 4 and 12 though, the circumcised men were contracting AIDS at a rate 250% higher than the uncircumcised men. If the study had not been stopped in the 12th month, the infection rate of the circumcised men would have exceeded the infection rate of the uncircumcised men by a wide margin. By mere extrapolation of the results, this can be clearly seen.<br><br>
The authors also place blame on the langerhans cells present in the inner mucosal foreskin. These are the cells that give the foreskin exquisite sensitivity in the sexual act. These are the exact same cells that give the lips exquisite sensitivity These authors and none of the authors of previous attempts to show a correlation between AIDS transmission and circumcision have been able to explain how if you still have langerhans cells after circumcision, they are not also receptive to the AIDS virus. All circumcised men retain 2/3 to 1/2 of the inner mucosal foreskin after curcumcision and that remnant foreskin contains 10’s of thousands of langerhans cells that would be just as susceptible to infection as those that were cut off. This is nothing more than the muddled thinking of someone pressed for an answer.<br><br>
Finally, you have to look at the applicability of this study to the US population. Here is one take on it <a href="http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=529" target="_blank">http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=news&ID=529</a>. With the known risks of circumcision and the number of dead babies and the number of sexually maimed men walking around in America, it just doesn’t make sense. Add to that the fact that there is a cure for AIDS going into the testing phase that shows great promise and could be on the market as early as late 2007, it is definitely premature to advocate the sexual violation of millions of men for the possible slight reduction in the number of AIDS cases. With the current population of American adult men 85% circumcised, it makes no sense that The US has the highest AIDS infection rate of any industrialized country in the world. Why the hell haven’t our circumcisions protected us as the authors promise? Their lies out them on just a cursory inspection. In Africa as well as here, the authors have stated that “Circumcision is like a vaccine against AIIDS.” This is overstatement to the extreme. I know many Americans have fallen for it but I can not imagine how many uneducated and unsophisticated African have fallen prey to that statement but it is hideously dangerous. It could wipe out entire African tribal populations in one of the most culturally diverse areas of the world. Many of these populations are tiny and are already at risk. We should not export American trickery to them to further our own agendas. That’s exactly what this study is all about, reviving the cultural practice of circumcision in America with false studies in Africa and trying to force the results on Americans.<br><br>
The American Academy of Pediatrics Taskforce on Circumcision has visited this issue before. At their last general meeting, they reviewed 671 research projects and found that prophylactic infant circumcision has no medical value at all and that there is no conclusive evidence that it has any medical benefit. As late as last year, they reviewed all current information and found no reason to change the policy statement that has been in effect for more that 35 years and re-affirmed their previous policy statement. These are medical professionals and their policy certainly supercedes that of any newspaper editorial board. The editorial board of the L.A. Times should stay in an arena where they are qualified to make recommendations and out of making broad and sweeping recommendations in the medical field. Every year, innocent boys die from complications of their circumcision procedure and hundreds of thousands of men walk the streets with mangled and non-functional genitals because of a purely esoteric and needless procedure performed on them at the most vulnerable time of their life and on their most personal and private parts at the behest of parents who are woefully uneducated and ignorant of the perils and by medical professionals who are willing to violate these children for the almighty dollar.<br><br>
I expect you to publish a retraction of this editorial stating that current scientific evidence does not support the routine circumcision of infants and that on second inspection of this African study, that you have withdrawn your recommendation and support of circumcision until further scientific evidence warrants a change in your policy statement. Unless you do, you have the blood of dead infants on your hands and you are just as guilty as the authors of this piece of rubbish dressed up in gift wrap.<br><br><br><br>
Frank</td>
</tr></table></div>
Here are some other perspectives I found as well.<br><br><a href="http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002" target="_blank">http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002</a><br><br><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051121.html" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_.../20051121.html</a>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
I am actually involved in a discussion with my brother about this atm via email.<br><br>
If ever a man was too intelligent for his own good...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Thanks Lady Marmalade! And thanks to everyone for the great info.<br><br>
I'm really bummed that such a major international news outlet would be so lame as to promote that crap. It's more advertisement than news article. And they put it up near the top under major news headings - not at the bottom near the health section. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,037 Posts
Ever since they decided not to end two more longer term HIV transmission/circ studies early at the end of this last month there's been more press releases from that previous study and more media push for circumcision.<br><br><br><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/29/MNGICJM7L81.DTL" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGICJM7L81.DTL</a><br><br>
Anyhow, the thing that I find disturbing as well...even if there is found to be a decrease we very well know that condoms are the only proven route to prevent HIV transmission. However, it has been reported in some articles that I have read that in Africa now circumcision is being called "the invisible condom." I KID YOU NOT!<img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/img/vbsmilies/smilies/dizzy.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="Dizzy">: Isn't that insane. Not to mention the fact that it has already been shown that women have a higher incidence of HIV transmission with circumcised partners (hey, they don't care about the women...big shock there <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">: ), and circumcised partners have lower rates of condom use and engage in a higher rates of high risk sexual behavior.<br><br>
One of the articles I read written in Africa was starting to plug RIC as well...one of the officials being quoted as saying "I had all 4 of my sons just circ'd (though not himself of course)".<br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/banghead.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="banghead">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>sophmama</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I'm really bummed that such a major international news outlet would be so lame as to promote that crap. It's more advertisement than news article. And they put it up near the top under major news headings - not at the bottom near the health section. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/irked.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="irked">:</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Actually Becky, it's IN the Health section. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/wink1.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="wink1"> Currently, the main heading in the BBC News website is: "Scores dead in Mumbai train bombs".<br><br>
BBC News is renowned for its impartiality; which means it reports news as fairly as it can, without comment. It never promotes news beyond it's remit to offer unbiased reporting from home and abroad.<br><br>
Just a heads-up! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br><br>
Christopher
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,360 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>phatchristy</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;"><br><a href="http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002" target="_blank">http://www.iasociety.org/abstract/sh...act_id=2176002</a><br></div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
This one doesn't work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,347 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Islay</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Actually Becky, it's IN the Health section. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/wink1.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="wink1"> Currently, the main heading in the BBC News website is: "Scores dead in Mumbai train bombs".<br><br>
BBC News is renowned for its impartiality; which means it reports news as fairly as it can, without comment. It never promotes news beyond it's remit to offer unbiased reporting from home and abroad.<br><br>
Just a heads-up! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile"><br><br>
Christopher</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
When the article first came out it was at the top underneath the breaking news section. They do move the articles several times a day. The article didn't bring up the research that contradicts the claims listed. I read the BBC daily and found it to be a surprisingly biased article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
"'My sense is that the circumcision study may<br>
have been stopped too early and that there is a<br>
real danger we may be subjecting hundreds of<br>
thousands or millions of men to having<br>
circumcisions that may not have the benefit we<br>
assume,' Jeremy Grimshaw, director of the<br>
Clinical Epidemiology Program at the University<br>
of Ottawa, warns me about the South African<br>
study."<br><br>
Please see:<br><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20051121.html" target="_blank">http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_.../20051121.html</a><br><br>
Or:<br><a href="http://tinyurl.com/dldd9" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/dldd9</a><br><br>
Or read it here:<br>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
STEPHEN STRAUSS:<br>
No shortcuts in circumcision<br>
CBC News Viewpoint | November 21, 2005 | More<br>
from Stephen Strauss<br><br>
-------------------------------------<br>
Stephen Strauss wrote articles, columns and<br>
editorials about science and technology for the<br>
Globe and Mail for more than 20 years. He has<br>
also authored three books, several book chapters,<br>
and for his efforts received numerous awards.<br>
Through all his time in journalism, he still<br>
remains smitten by the enduring wisdom of the<br>
motto of Austrian writer Karl Kraus. Say what is.<br>
-------------------------------------<br><br>
Snippety, snip, snip. Could that be the sound of<br>
AIDS in retreat in Africa?<br><br>
The auditory metaphor and its effect come to mind<br>
if you spend any time reflecting on a<br>
much-publicized South African study tying a<br>
dramatic decline in HIV infection rates to<br>
circumcision. But well might you think just the<br>
opposite if you were apprised of the sometimes<br>
putrid public health politics underlying<br>
publication of said study.<br><br>
The facts seem straightforward on the surface.<br>
Some 3,000 young men – hardly any married – were<br>
selected from a semi-rural area near<br>
Johannesburg. Half were put in a group that got<br>
circumcisions, half in a non-circumcised group.<br>
After more than a year, 20 of the circumcised men<br>
had become HIV positive versus 49 of the<br>
uncircumcised men, this even though the<br>
circumcised men had more sexual encounters.<br><br>
The scientists were jubilant. "The result is<br>
equivalent to saying that during the period [of<br>
the study] the intervention prevented six out of<br>
10 potential infections," wrote the French and<br>
South African researchers who conducted the<br>
research, adding, "this provides a degree of<br>
protection against acquiring HIV infection<br>
equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficiency<br>
would have achieved."<br><br>
The finding was so striking, the researchers<br>
stopped the trial before it was supposed to<br>
finish because the "protective effect of male<br>
circumcision was so high it would have been<br>
unethical to continue." That is to say, they<br>
thought there was no doubt that circumcision<br>
protected against HIV infection.<br><br>
Finally, the effectiveness of circumcision led<br>
the scientists to argue that decision makers<br>
should herewith consider making circumcision of<br>
all African men a public health priority.<br><br>
Wonderful, except for all the ethical and<br>
methodological mud splattered on the findings.<br><br>
As a background you should know the project grew<br>
out of more than two decades of observation that<br>
places in Africa where circumcision was the norm<br>
had less AIDS than the uncut places. We are not,<br>
by the way, simply talking about Muslim Africa<br>
but also tribes where male circumcision is part<br>
of a rite of passage into adulthood.<br><br>
While scientists have been able to come up with<br>
numbers of physical explanations for why what has<br>
sometimes been snidely called the "cut cure"<br>
works, nobody has been certain about the<br>
connection. This is because no previous studies<br>
have controlled for confounding factors – age at<br>
circumcision, number of sexual partners, safe sex<br>
practices – that could distort results. So the<br>
Johannesburg study was vital in translating<br>
anecdote and intimation into believable science.<br><br>
However, there was a fundamental ethical problem<br>
with its methodology. The men were given HIV<br>
tests before the project began and 146 were found<br>
to be HIV positive, but – underline the following<br>
in lipstick red – they weren't told about their<br>
status as researchers "considered it unethical to<br>
inform participants of their HIV status without<br>
their permission."<br><br>
Gasp. You don't tell people with a<br>
life-threatening, highly infectious disease they<br>
are both sick and dangerous to others because<br>
knowing somehow violates their sense of privacy?<br><br>
To justify this position, French and South<br>
African scientists involved argued that they were<br>
just respecting a fear of AIDS stigma so intense<br>
that "many of these people prefer to be dead than<br>
rejected by their communities."<br><br>
Gasp again. This is a public health position so<br>
obviously crazy – think in the Canadian context<br>
of not telling people with SARS they had it<br>
because they would be stigmatized and quarantined<br>
– it led the British journal The Lancet to reject<br>
the publishing of the AIDS paper on the grounds<br>
it was ethically flawed.<br><br>
And there may be a worse confusion to come. Not<br>
everyone believes the HIV infection numbers in<br>
men who hadn't been circumcised were so<br>
conclusive they justified the trial being shut<br>
down early. Part of the concern was caused by two<br>
recent papers that suggest that clinical trials<br>
claiming huge, big, early effects from drugs or<br>
other treatments as often as not turn out to be<br>
statistical blips and not true results.<br><br>
Could that be the case here?<br><br>
"My sense is that the circumcision study may have<br>
been stopped too early and that there is a real<br>
danger we may be subjecting hundreds of thousands<br>
or millions of men to having circumcisions that<br>
may not have the benefit we assume," Jeremy<br>
Grimshaw, director of the Clinical Epidemiology<br>
Program at the University of Ottawa, warns me<br>
about the South African study.<br><br>
Gasp a third time. So why stop a study when the<br>
number of people who had become infected wasn't<br>
even half as large as the number who had the<br>
disease to start with and weren't told they had<br>
it? My guess is a guilty conscience. The doctors<br>
wanted an excuse to tell all the infected of<br>
their condition, no matter the stigmatization,<br>
and the early, positive statistics gave them just<br>
such an out.<br><br>
My justification for this charge is that<br>
immediately after they closed down the trial, the<br>
researchers changed the rules so they could<br>
inform people of their disease, even if the<br>
people initially said they didn't want to know.<br><br>
Maybe other, still ongoing trials will support<br>
the cut cure, but for the time being my faith in<br>
this one has gone snippety, snip, snip.<br>
---------------------------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Revamp</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I am actually involved in a discussion with my brother about this atm via email.<br><br>
If ever a man was too intelligent for his own good...</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
I know what you mean, my aunt and I are currently discussing this article. Its starting to get ugly!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>ashtree</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I know what you mean, my aunt and I are currently discussing this article. Its starting to get ugly!</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
You just need to stick to two simple words: The. Lancet.<br><br>
They never published that research, if something so striking and pioneering was scientifically sound then they would have done.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
What intrests me is that they didnt test circumcised women at the same time or test the parterners of the men to see what there rate of Male to female transmission was. Nor do they actually know how many of the partners of these men actually had HIV. They just circumcised a bunch of guys and said "see it works". None of these things were accounted for from what ive read. let alone sexual practices.<br>
I will bet you wont see them circumcising women to see if it reduces their rate of HIV transmission. Even if it did show a vast improvment in the reduction in HIV. Why? Because male circumcision is obviously acceptable to the heads of the study. Female circumcision isnt. Anyone want to bet the guys in charge of this thing are circumcised and probably from the U.S. ? I notice they basically say they had a lead because one area of the country had a much lower incident of HIV and higer rate of circumcison. Here is another lead thats been mentioned here before, compare the U.S. high circ/HIV rate with Europe's lower HIV and even lower circumcision rates. Just another big red flag that the people performing this study already had the conclusion in their heads before it started.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
345 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>sophmama</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">When the article first came out it was at the top underneath the breaking news section. They do move the articles several times a day. The article didn't bring up the research that contradicts the claims listed. I read the BBC daily and found it to be a surprisingly biased article.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Fair enough, Becky, I accept your assurance that it was <i>breaking news</i> in the first place. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/bow2.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="bow2"><br><br>
The article didn't add any contradictory material because, at the time, there was none. I watched the daily breakfast programme the following day and there was a very satisfying rebuttal from a BMA member. My guess is that with the passing of a few hours, what was first considered newsworthy lost its validity. Hence we heard no more about it on national television. And certainly, Joe Public gave it no more than a passing nod - unsurprisingly.<br><br>
Christopher
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,787 Posts
My refutation of this article (my dh asked about it when it first surfaced) has been simply that if circ prevented HIV, it would be very rare amongst US men from the last two generations, which it obviously is not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,658 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>AXEius</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">I will bet you wont see them circumcising women to see if it reduces their rate of HIV transmission. Even if it did show a vast improvment in the reduction in HIV. Why? Because male circumcision is obviously acceptable to the heads of the study. Female circumcision isnt. Anyone want to bet the guys in charge of this thing are circumcised and probably from the U.S. ?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
No doubt. Ya think?<br><br>
Why does no one dare to ask these questions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,920 Posts
Ugh, I just saw this "news story" tonight! I sent my local news station an email....
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top