South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

July 20, 2019, 01:17:51 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Circumcision 'reduces HIV risk'

 (Read 12200 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #30 on: June 29, 2012, 15:55:10 PM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2012, 07:23:17 AM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.

There might be some truth in this in my opinion, circumcised men tend to be "cleaner" down there, and I know that women married to uncircumcised men are more prone to vaginal infections, and its a prominent question asked by many GP's when a woman comes in with a blazing infection, and the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along.
Logged
Faerie
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 2112



« Reply #32 on: July 04, 2012, 07:30:46 AM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.

There might be some truth in this in my opinion, circumcised men tend to be "cleaner" down there, and I know that women married to uncircumcised men are more prone to vaginal infections, and its a prominent question asked by many GP's when a woman comes in with a blazing infection, and the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along.

Sheesh... Sensitive much for the smite I got for posting my opinion?  Yawn

Care to discuss the horseshit and attempt to change my opinion?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 09:11:56 AM by Faerie » Logged
Jacques
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


JacquesR
WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2012, 12:09:42 PM »

My column on this, for those who might be interested: http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-07-03-the-cutting-edge-of-religion
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2012, 13:00:43 PM »

Faerie, battle scars become you! Wink

Jacques, I notice with dismay that what is perhaps your most forceful point — viz. that tradition is not in itself a sufficient reason for perpetuating customs, especially harmful ones — does not resonate well if at all with others.  It astounds me how individuals of an ostensibly sapient species can be so firmly bound by the grip of childhood indoctrination and programming.

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3748


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #35 on: September 09, 2012, 19:32:06 PM »

Though somewhat delayed, the predictable repercussions of the Cologne court ruling have begun…

'Luthon64
Logged
Zulumoose
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +2/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2012, 14:04:09 PM »

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

A few selected quotes from a most revealing article about the HIV circumcision trials.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The “randomized controlled clinical trials” upon which these recommendations are based (I use scare quotes deliberately) represent bad science at its most dangerous: we are talking about poorly conducted experiments with dubious results presented in an outrageously misleading fashion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let’s assume for a second that the circumcised men really did end up getting infected with HIV at a lower rate than the control-group men who were left intact—even though, as we will see in a moment, we have very little reason to believe that this is so. Why might that outcome have happened?

If you answered, “Because those men knew they were in the treatment group in the first place, had less sex over the duration of the study (because they had bandaged, wounded penises for much of it), and had safer sex when they had it (because they received free condoms and special counseling from the doctors), thereby reducing their overall exposure to HIV compared to the control group by a wide margin” then you are on the right track



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.

That’s right: 60% is the relative reduction in infection rates, comparing two vanishingly small percentages: a clever bit of arithmetic that generates a big-seeming number, yet one which wildly misrepresents the results of the study. The absolute decrease in HIV infection between the treatment and control groups in these experiments was a mere 1.31%, which can hardly be considered clinically significant, especially given the numerous confounds that the studies failed to rule out.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some major issues with trying to roll-out circumcision in particular include the fact that the RCCT participants—who were not representative of the general population to begin with—had (1) continuous counseling and yearlong medical care, as well as (2) frequent monitoring for infection, and (3) surgeries performed in highly sanitary conditions by trained, Western doctors. All of which would be unlikely to replicate at a larger scale in the parts of the world suffering from the worst of the AIDS epidemic. And of course, circumcisions carried out in un-sanitary conditions (that is, the precise conditions that are likelier to hold in those very places) carry a huge risk of transmitting HIV at the interface of open wounds and dirty surgical instruments. So this is a serious point.

What should we conclude? Green et al. get it right: “Before circumcising millions of men in regions with high prevalences of HIV infection, it is important to consider alternatives. A comparison of male circumcision to condom use concluded that supplying free condoms is 95 times more cost effective.”




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2012, 14:22:01 PM »

There is also the danger that some circumcised men may think: "I'm circumcised, so I'm safe.  I don't need to wear them pesky condoms."
Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1819



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 11, 2012, 17:00:03 PM »

There is also the danger that some circumcised men may think: "I'm circumcised, so I'm safe.  I don't need to wear them pesky condoms."

Yup. This circumcision mania is going to backfire, big time.
Logged
BoogieMonster
NP complete
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3070



« Reply #39 on: September 11, 2012, 17:17:12 PM »


There might be some truth in this in my opinion, circumcised men tend to be "cleaner" down there, and I know that women married to uncircumcised men are more prone to vaginal infections, and its a prominent question asked by many GP's when a woman comes in with a blazing infection, and the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along.

Sheesh... Sensitive much for the smite I got for posting my opinion?  Yawn

Care to discuss the horseshit and attempt to change my opinion?

For the record, I did not smite you. However I can see why someone perhaps would, so I'll tell you why I _think_ you got smited.

a) Can you provide evidence that circumsized men are "cleaner". Wouldn't hygiene determine this much more than a foreskin?

b) Data for women with uncut men having more infections?

c) Is it really a common question? I've been present for the diagnosis of this and never heard it asked. A more prominent question I heard is: "What birth-control do you use?". But then we just have two competing statements with no data to adjudicate. Have references?

Quote
the husband often also receive a script to clear up his bugs that he so freely passes along

Or gets passed to him, which if left untreated, would re-infect the woman. How do you go about determining the causality?
Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2012, 07:06:08 AM »

There was a similar study some decades ago that found that Jewish women' cervical cancer incidence was lower than the norm...conclusion was that circumcision did the trick...can't remember the reference now but I'll look for it. Sounds like propaganda to me.
Nothing to do with circumcision.  Bapkas and gefilte fish are powerful anti-carcinogens...
Logged
Hermes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +18/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 1137



« Reply #41 on: October 02, 2013, 15:18:31 PM »

Stockholm - The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden called Saturday for the country to ban circumcision, a practice he said contravened the basic rights of boys.

“Circumcising a child without medical justification nor his consent contravenes this child's human rights,” wrote Fredrik Malmberg in a text co-signed with health professionals and published in the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

“The operation is painful, irreversible and can lead to dangerous complications,” Malmberg said.

Logged
st0nes
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 942



mark.widdicombe1
WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 02, 2013, 15:27:56 PM »

Stockholm - The Ombudsman for Children in Sweden called Saturday for the country to ban circumcision, a practice he said contravened the basic rights of boys.

“Circumcising a child without medical justification nor his consent contravenes this child's human rights,” wrote Fredrik Malmberg in a text co-signed with health professionals and published in the daily newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

“The operation is painful, irreversible and can lead to dangerous complications,” Malmberg said.



Good sense. Let the baby decide for himself whether or not to have it done when he gets to an age when he can make an informed decision.  Parents do not have the right to mutilate their children for any reason at all.
Logged
Al Bundy
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #43 on: October 07, 2013, 21:23:28 PM »

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/AidsFocus/Circumcision-reduces-HIV-risk-20090415
Quote
"Research on the effectiveness of male circumcision for preventing HIV in heterosexual men is conclusive," said lead researcher Nandi Siegfried, co-director of the centre, which is located at the SA Medical Research Council.

Quote
Siegfried said circumcision might help to protect against HIV by removing cells in the foreskin to which the virus was specifically attracted.

These Langerhans cells had receptors that enabled the virus to enter them.


I'm slways skeptical on this topic. If true, surely, there should  a statistically significant difference in HIV /AIDS infection rates between those traditional communities that circumcise and those that don't? Yet, when all other factors are controlled for, the HIV/ AIDS infection remains pretty constant.


Logged
brianvds
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +12/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1819



WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 23, 2013, 04:54:23 AM »

If it goes on like this, before long circumcision will become mandated by law... :-)

http://mg.co.za/article/2013-10-22-motsoaledi-urges-politicians-to-get-circumcised

Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 4.14 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page January 28, 2019, 15:12:07 PM
Privacy Policy