PDA

View Full Version : 2009-07-16 BBC - CIRCUMCISED MEN 50% MORE LIKELY to TRANSMIT AIDS VIRUS


admin
August 25th, 2010, 10:27
This 2009 Uganda study by Wawer and her husband Gray found that CIRCUMCISED HIV+ MEN WERE 50% MORE LIKELY TO TRANSMIT THE AIDS VIRUS (HIV) than HIV+ intact men were.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8154134.stm Accessed: 2013-12-22. Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6M3QLMJqr

A year later, it is still very hard to find coverage of this story.

When similar strength results went the other way in the Orange Farm trials, it sparked huge investements in further trials.
- - - - -
It is so sad that men were cut and that women got AIDS and stuff, but this result is PROFOUND!

18% of the cut men's partners got AIDS vs only 12% for the men remaining intact.

Will this headline be on every paper by tomorow: ??

CIRCUMCISED MEN 50% MORE LIKELY TO TRANSMIT AIDS VIRUS

Somehow I doubt it, but that's the news.

-Ron

rtnt
August 25th, 2010, 15:04
That clearly shows that the pro-circumcision media and pro-circumcision researchers are only interested in justifying circumcision, they don't care about reducing AIDS rates.

If pro-circumcision researchers really were interested in reducing AIDS rates they would have done follow up studies to confirm if circumcised males are 50% more likely to transmit HIV. By not doing follow up studies that shows that they couldn't care less about reducing AIDS rates, all they want to do is justify circumcision.

The researchers tried to discredit that study by saying that the difference in transmission rates wasn't statistically significant, that the circumcised males transmitting at a higher rate could have been from chance. But if the study hadn't been stopped early then the difference in rates might have become statistically significant. And regardless the difference in transmission rates could have been because circumcised males are more likely to transmit HIV, that is what the study showed but that wasn't conclusive because the differnce in rates didn't rise to statistical significance.

The Circumstitions website states that with those 3 random controlled studies in Africa showing circumcised males are 50% or more likely to get HIV, the difference in HIV infection rates in those studies could have become statistically INsignificant if those 3 studies hadn't been stopped early. That's one of the reasons those 3 studies were stopped early, and that shows how dirty and untrustworthy those pro-circumcision researchers are.

Dasher
August 25th, 2010, 17:09
that shows how dirty and untrustworthy those pro-circumcision researchers are.

They are dirty and untrustworthy!

But what would you call the American doctor who works for a U.S. government agency, who created AIDS in his lab?

What would you call the health officials who OK'd AIDS to be included in smallpox vaccine which spread AIDS in Africa in the first place?

And what would you call the American public health officials who deliberately laced hepatitis vaccine with AIDS, and sent it to be injected in gay men in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco in 1978-79?

ctrclckws
August 26th, 2010, 05:56
That clearly shows that the pro-circumcision media and pro-circumcision researchers are only interested in justifying circumcision, they don't care about reducing AIDS rates.


Or what other justifications that have been used in the past.

Masturbation
syphilis
cancer
epilepsy
the illness of the day.