Study shows male circumcision ,may help prevent AIDS transmission

"Jake Waskett" wrote in message
. uk...
R. Steve Walz wrote:

Briar Rabbit wrote:

Study shows male circumcision
may help prevent AIDS transmission
---------------
Lying again, as usual.

On the contrary, that is indeed what it says. And, based upon available
evidence, circumcision does indeed help to reduce the spread of HIV - the
virus that caused AIDS.

Allow me to reprint this article written by Ron Miller, from a discussion of
this subject on the restoration list:

I've seen studies that go both ways. I doubt anyone can say with
absoluteness whether foreskin removal lowers the risk of getting AIDS.
Regardless....I'll bet that simply cutting off your whole penis is virtually
100% protection against sexually-transmitted AIDS. So therefore...?

Don't want AIDS? Don't live like an alley cat. That would prevent 95% of the
AIDS cases. It shouldn't take a super-genius to figure out that cutting off
parts of your genitals is not an ideal way to prevent STDs -- assuming it's
effective at all, which is debatable.

1A. Any study, conclusion, or opinion predicated on flawed or invalid data
is inherently flawed and invalid.

1B. Any conclusion or opinion predicated on any number of flawed studies
with invalid data is inherently flawed and invalid..

2. Any data, study, conclusion , or opinion contradicted by reality is
inherently flawed and invalid.

3. HIV reporting Flawed:

"Fewer than half of one percent of North Americans and Europeans are HIV
positive. However, in parts of southern Africa, such as Botswana, as many as
35 percent of the population is said by London's Daily Telegraph (Jul. 10)
to be HIV positive. (Reuters, however, places the figure at 29%, while the
July 7 Science, using official figures from the South African government,
offers 23%). But what has not received media attention is a troubling
realization. Based on standard medical practice, we actually have no idea
how widespread the disease is in Africa.

There are two related problems -- the reliability of HIV prevalence
estimates, often nationwide extrapolations from selected sites, and the
accuracy of a full-blown AIDS diagnosis. Not only are public health figures
in several African regions dubious in general (as are nearly all government
data in these areas), practically every commentator speaking out on the
African holocaust neglects to mention what may well be the heart of the
matter: The criteria for declaring an AIDS case in Africa do not include an
actual blood test to determine whether or not the patient is HIV positive.

According to what is known as the Bangui definition, named for the city in
the Central African Republic where it was adopted in 1985, a diagnosis of
AIDS could be given in the presence of features such as prolonged fevers
(for a month or more), weight loss of 10 percent or greater, and prolonged
diarrhea. But no blood test is required. That is, deaths that heretofore
were attributed to malaria, dysentery, or tuberculosis, for instance, may
now be classified and accounted as AIDS deaths. (In fact, the June 23
Science reports that one study found TB in 40% of HIV-infected people upon
autopsy).
As a November, 1986 article in Science (AIDS in Africa: An Epidemiologic
Paradigm) observed, while pediatric HIV disease in Africa resembles HIV
infections in children in the United States, it is difficult to distinguish
HIV-associated disease in Africa on clinical grounds, where failure to
thrive, malnutrition, and pulmonary disease are common pediatric problems.

Hence, while estimates of the extent of HIV infection have been forthcoming
(ideally based on blood analysis), the true scope of the crisis is simply
unknown. There could be vastly more cases lurking than have been dreamed of
in the current nightmare or there could be substantially less. A medically
precise definition of an African AIDS case, though difficult to obtain, is
an essential tool in fighting the disease, particularly when it comes to
directing resources (According to the April 27 Nature, World Bank President
James Wolfensohn promised that there would be 'no limit' to the funds
available for combating AIDS in the developing world.). It would compound
one assured (but still shadowy in scale) public health tragedy if the world
were to mobilize to save Africa -- only to find that it had sent condoms and
the AIDS drug AZT, when what was most needed on the docks in Maputo and
Luanda were clean water and antibiotics. Proper reportorial skepticism and
careful medical accounting have never been more in need."

Looking at this and the reality below, it is very apparent where those
circumcisers in Africa are getting their statistics--they make them up!

Here is an analysis of all of the HIV/circumcision studies as to validity:

http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/cochrane2003/

Reality:

The US has the 6th highest HIV rates in the world. It is preceded only by
Zimbabwe, Congo, Malai, Kenya and Chad, all of which are circumcising
countries
HIV cases /100,000 World Health Org (1994)

Circumcising countries:

Zimbabwe........................96.7
Congo..............................58.4
Malawi..............................49.2
Kenya...............................24.8
Chad................................20.2
USA.................................16.0

Non-circumcising countries:

Japan.................................0.2
Finland...............................0.9
Norway..............................1.5
Sweden.............................2.0
Germany...........................2.2

World Heath Organization data from 1995 show the following AIDS rates for
that year:

Nation AIDS cases / 100,000 Cirk rates / 1995* Cirk rates/1975**

USA......................16.0..................... ...60%.......................85%
Australia.....................4.5................. .......8%.......................55%
Canada......................3.8................... .17%.......................30%
France.......................3.5.................. ....1%.......................1%
Netherlands...............3.1..................... .1%.......................1%
UK............................2.4................. .......1%.........................1%
Germany.................2.2...................... 1%.......................1%
Sweden..................2.0....................... 1%.......................1%
Norway..................1.6....................... 1%.......................1%
New Zealand..........1.2.........................5%... .................10(?)
Finland.................0.9....................... ...1%................1%
Japan...............
...0.6........................1%................. ......1%

...* Est various sources--sources avail from CIRP
** Est various sources--sources avail from CIRP --time allotted to reach
sexual maturity

So taking the estimated cirk rates of 20 years ago we find an amazing
POSITIVE correlation between the cirk rates and the HIV rates.