MySpace


blogs.myspace.com/joseph4gi
MySpace.com | rss | sign in
Joseph



Last Updated: 12/7/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 28
Sign: Virgo

City: Stockton
State: California
Country: US
Signup Date: 5/20/2007
Wednesday, October 28, 2009 

Category: Parties and Nightlife
Yet another "scientific approach" to male circumcision:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(09)70235-X/fulltext

The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Volume 9, Issue 11, Pages 669 - 677, November 2009
<Previous Article|Next Article>
doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70235-XCite or Link Using DOI

Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Dr Helen A Weiss PhD a , Catherine A Hankins FRCPC b, Kim Dickson MD c

Summary

Male circumcision provides long-term indirect protection to women by reducing the risk of heterosexual men becoming infected with HIV. In this Review, we summarise the evidence for a direct effect of male circumcision on the risk of women becoming infected with HIV. We identified 19 epidemiological analyses, from 11 study populations, of the association of male circumcision and HIV risk in women. A random-effects meta-analysis of data from the one randomised controlled trial and six longitudinal analyses showed little evidence that male circumcision directly reduces risk of HIV in women (summary relative risk 0·80, 95% CI 0·53—1·36). Definitive data would come from a further randomised controlled trial of circumcision among men infected with HIV in serodiscordant heterosexual relationships, but this would involve enrolling about 10 000 couples and is likely to be logistically unfeasible. As circumcision services for HIV prevention are scaled-up in high HIV prevalence settings, rapid integration with existing prevention strategies would maximise benefits for both men and women. Rigorous monitoring is essential to ensure that any adverse effects on women are detected and minimised.

This, in the face of the Wawer study, that showed that WOMEN WERE 50% MORE LIKELY to get HIV from a circumcised partner:


http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2009/07/africa-why-did-they-stop-the-study-to-examine-hiv-infection-among-partners-of-circumcised-men.html

Monday, July 20, 2009

AFRICA: Why did Wawer et al. stop the study examining HIV infection among sero-discordant female partners of circumcised men?

A nagging concern has arisen in the wake of a recently published study [pdf] examining HIV infection rates in female partners of HIV-positive, circumcised men. The study, authored by Wawer et al., was stopped early, reportedly due to "futility." However, valuable information may have been lost by stopping the study early.

The clear trend was towards much greater rates of HIV infection among the female partners of circumcised men. Indeed, HIV infection sero-conversion rates were trending towards 50% or greater among these women.

The researchers called continuing the observation and collection of data an exercise in futility. If the authors were only seeking a benefit to female partners of circumcised HIV-positive men, they would be correct to describe the continued search as futile. However, why were they not also looking for a negative impact?

The relevant facts of the study are these. The male half of the couples recruited were already HIV-positive. The trend was towards higher sero-conversion among women in the couples where the male was circumcised. No additional ethical dilemmas were present in continuing to observe the trend. In fact, offering circumcision to the intact males arguably would have presented the additional ethical dilemma. Therefore, continued observation to the scheduled completion date of the study could only have yielded more and better data, possibly rising to the level of statistical significance.

It is hard to conclude anything other than that the researchers were not looking for a negative impact and perhaps may have desired to avoid a statistically significant adverse finding to male circumcision. Johns Hopkins University, home to Bloomberg School of Public Health, has been a hot bed of research into the efficacy of male circumcision in reducing HIV risk. An adverse finding could jeopardize not only their programs, both research and roll out, centered around the belief  that male circumcision has value in the HIV/AIDS fight, but also the entire circumcision industry growing up around this latest fad in HIV/AIDS prevention.

The real reason no statistical significance was observed may be because the observers avoided that possibility.
4:01 PM
 
Print
Previous Post: SOUTH AFRICA: Forced Circ Unconstitutional  | Back to Blog List | Next Post: NYMag: "How Much Does it Hurt?"
Joseph

 
The following was sent to the Lancet:

editorial@lancet.com

Dear Sirs,

I am sending this letter here because I'm not sure what department I should send it to. I hope that you please forward this letter to the appropriate people, thank you.

I am writing because I am concerned at what passes for "study" nowadays.

No doubt, science is science, and there should be no holes barred when looking for ways to combat or prevent disease.

The question is, when is it going to far? Are ALL studies justified merely because they are called "studies?" Or does there come a time when ethic and moral value comes into play? Let us remember that Josef Mengele also performed quite a few experiments. When is it science? When is it madness?

I am writing because I am tired reading the endless attempts at legitimizing male circumcision. It's been about a century, and "scientists" have attempted to associate the foreskin with quite a few diseases, cancer and AIDS notwithstanding. Ultimately, this science is ALWAYS used to legitimize the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors who aren't even at risk.

The list of "studies" surrounding male circumcision is endless, but I write to ask, why aren't there any "studies" observing "the effect of female circumcision on HIV?"

There is an imbalance here; male circumcision, even male infant circumcision is already being touted as "HIV protection," when it does absolutely nothing of the sort. If the "studies" are correct, circumcision "might" help "reduce the risk" of HIV, but they omit observations of countries where this is not the case, the US, where 80% of the male population is already circumcised notwithstanding.

Boys in America continue to be circumcised because "countless studies" show that "circumcision could reduce the risk" of something or other. But FGM is unanimously condemned, and not a single "study" is needed to do this.

The "study" of circumcision has gone long enough.

The "study" of circumcision is nothing less than an attempt at legitimizing the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

It is another Josef Mengele experiment posing as science.

As FGM is unanimously accepted as a gross human rights violation, so too should male circumcison, no, MGM.

These "studies" must stop, and I hereby call on the Lancet, an honorable journal of modern medicine, to begin the rejection of any more male circumcision studies.

NO MORE STUDIES ON MALE GENITAL MUTILATION PLEASE.

Recent studies in Thailand show that there is hope in finding an HIV vaccine that actually immunizes the body against disease. THAT is true study.

The "study" of male circumcision is a human tragedy. No other permanently disfiguring "cultural rite" has been as "studied." No one studies how feet-binding or neck-stretching "might" have medical benefits. It needs to end, and I do hope that one day the people at the Lancet grow the dignity to start rejecting such madness.

Concerned member of the male sex,

Joseph

 
Posted by Joseph on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 4:12 PM
[Reply to this]