tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2659562638756579161.post1795752958527562375..comments2023-04-01T07:28:19.219-07:00Comments on The Case Against Infant Circumcision: How bad is the African HIV Circumcision research?Mindofownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10457890566813906594noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2659562638756579161.post-41561252206060596192011-10-18T04:57:44.638-07:002011-10-18T04:57:44.638-07:00This is ASIDE from the fact that all of the "...This is ASIDE from the fact that all of the "studies" were written by rabid pro-circs who had been seeking to establish a link between circumcision and HIV for 20 years, this is ASIDE from the fact that the circumcised group was given a head start in the HIV prevention race, this is ASIDE from the fact that the so-called "studies" were ended early, and the "researchers" covered their tracks by circumcising the rest of the men (no follow up, no further "studies," as they would be "unethical," so the "researcher's" "findings" cannot be confirmed by other studies performed by other researchers), and this is ASIDE from the fact that the results of these so-called "studies" failed to correlate in 10 out of 18 African countries, according by USAID. (Not to mention Malaysia, The Philippines, Bangladesh, the United States and Israel.)<br /><br />Assuming that these so-called "studies" were 100% accurate, what does that "60%" number that pro-circs bandy about actually mean?<br /><br />Does it mean that if you circumcise 100 men and let them all have sex with HIV+ women, 40 men will get HIV, and 60 of them won't?<br /><br />No, that's not what that number means.<br /><br />For these so-called "studies," 5,411 men were circumcised, while 5,497 men were hired on as a non-circumcised control group. After 20 months,<br />64 of the men in the circumcised experimental groups had acquired HIV, compared to 137 in the non-circumcised control groups. That "60%" figure we often hear in the media was the difference of between the subgroup of men who got HIV. When you consider the number of men who did NOT acquire HIV, that number shrinks to a whopping 1.8%.<br /><br />In the grand scheme of things, even if we were to give these so-called "studies" the benefit of the doubt, the real difference was insignificant.<br /><br />The WHO has endorsed male circumcision as "HIV prevention" based on an over-exaggerated 1.8% "reduction" in the risk of HIV, which may not even be due directly to circumcision.<br /><br />Like Guatemala, sooner or later the day will come when the US will have to apologize for exploiting the people of needy countries as guinea pigs, and for endorsing genital mutilation in the name of prophylaxia.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2659562638756579161.post-57315655577738165562011-10-17T18:33:42.067-07:002011-10-17T18:33:42.067-07:00www.StopInfantCircumcision.org
Stop Infant Circum...www.StopInfantCircumcision.org<br /><br />Stop Infant Circumcision SocietyDavid Wilsonhttp://www.sicsociety.orgnoreply@blogger.com