Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV

A reader from New Zealand spells it out simply and effectively:

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-...027/002788.htm

News from the Caribbean as of Tuesday August 15, 2006

---

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Circumcision and HIV
Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Dear Sir:

I'm sorry people abused Anthony L. Hall for his views on circumcision
and HIV, but if you study the non-religious history of this bizarre
practice, you find it has been touted as being good for every fearsome
disease that has assailed mankind in the last 150 years, from cancer to
epilepsy to TB, and masturbation when that was considered disease, so
the latest claim is wearily predictible.

The new study's flaws are considerable: the circumcised group was given
stronger safe-sex advice than the control group. The entire weight of
the conclusion falls on 29 circumcised men who did not get HIV,
compared to 20 circumcised men who did.

This is not a lot of protection, compared to the false sense of
security a painful and visibly marking operation on the genitals,
altering the feeling of intercourse, will give: "I'm safe, I'm
circumcised" will become just another arrow in a forceful man's quiver
as he badgers another unfortunate woman into having unprotected sex.

The operation is neither cost-free nor risk-free, and the costs will be
subtracted from campaigns that offer real protection.

Hugh Young
Porirua, New Zealand

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=502383

Hugh Young

.... one of the names that seems to be all over the net in
anti-circumcision forums -- with a closed-minded anti-circ viewpoint.
Not exactly an objective observer. Not exactly credible.

Zac wrote:

Hugh Young

... one of the names that seems to be all over the net in
anti-circumcision forums -- with a closed-minded anti-circ viewpoint.
Not exactly an objective observer. Not exactly credible.


Correct. Hugh Young is a source of constant misinformation about
science and HIV, and has been caught out many times in errors and
untruths. His latest statement is just one more of the same.

On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:02:59 -0700, Taylor )
wrote:

A reader from New Zealand spells it out simply and effectively:

http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/cgi-...027/002788.htm

News from the Caribbean as of Tuesday August 15, 2006

---

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Circumcision and HIV
Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Dear Sir:

I'm sorry people abused Anthony L. Hall for his views on circumcision
and HIV, but if you study the non-religious history of this bizarre
practice, you find it has been touted as being good for every fearsome
disease that has assailed mankind in the last 150 years, from cancer to
epilepsy to TB, and masturbation when that was considered disease, so
the latest claim is wearily predictible.

"If you look at history, you'll find all kinds of strange claims about the
moon, including the idea that it's made of blue cheese, so NASA's latest
assertion that it is rock is wearily predictable."

The new study's flaws are considerable: the circumcised group was given
stronger safe-sex advice than the control group.

An outright lie. He must be desperate.

The entire weight of
the conclusion falls on 29 circumcised men who did not get HIV,
compared to 20 circumcised men who did.

Now he's really confused. There were 1,620 men in the intervention
(circumcised) group, and 1,654 in the control (uncircumcised) group. 20
men in the intervention group became HIV+, compared with 49 in the control
group.

This is not a lot of protection,

It's approximately 60%.

compared to the false sense of
security a painful and visibly marking operation on the genitals,
altering the feeling of intercourse, will give: "I'm safe, I'm
circumcised" will become just another arrow in a forceful man's quiver
as he badgers another unfortunate woman into having unprotected sex.

If he's misinformed, yes. Unfortunately, by deliberately distorting the
facts, Hugh is himself misinforming.


The operation is neither cost-free nor risk-free, and the costs will be
subtracted from campaigns that offer real protection.

Hugh Young
Porirua, New Zealand

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=502383

Thanks for the link to the loony intactivist forum. I guess it's the next
best thing to Bedlam.

Jake Waskett wrote:
.."

The new study's flaws are considerable: the circumcised group was given
stronger safe-sex advice than the control group.

An outright lie. He must be desperate.

The entire weight of
the conclusion falls on 29 circumcised men who did not get HIV,
compared to 20 circumcised men who did.

Now he's really confused. There were 1,620 men in the intervention
(circumcised) group, and 1,654 in the control (uncircumcised) group. 20
men in the intervention group became HIV+, compared with 49 in the control
group.


Jake, I hope you will correct Hugh Young's rubbish in the forum where
it was published. Some of his errors can be attributed to his usual
confusion about scientific research, but some are so starkly unfounded
that they must surely be deliberate lies.

A separate issue is why Taylor keeps credulously repeating all kinds of
silly nonsense about this particular study -- which he obviously knows
nothing about. Taylor, why dont you just READ THE ORIGINAL? You
would save yourself endless embarassment.

Bs'd

Read here why circumcision recently saved millions of lives, and can
save many millions more in the near futu

http:www.geocities.com/skinhim

Eliyahu

Zac wrote:

Hugh Young

... one of the names that seems to be all over the net in
anti-circumcision forums -- with a closed-minded anti-circ viewpoint.
Not exactly an objective observer. Not exactly credible.

And YOU have an open mind to pro-intact? Exactly.

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:01:28 -0700, Taylor )
wrote:


Zac wrote:

Hugh Young

... one of the names that seems to be all over the net in
anti-circumcision forums -- with a closed-minded anti-circ viewpoint.
Not exactly an objective observer. Not exactly credible.

And YOU have an open mind to pro-intact? Exactly.

Surely one has an open mind to facts, not agendas?

Taylor ) wrote:
And YOU have an open mind to pro-intact? Exactly.

Surely, this is due to my own error.

When I read your intro "A reader from New Zealand spells it out simply
and effectively", I mistakenly thought you were trying to convey that
you had found an objective, impartial, independent author who would
shed light on the subject. But the letter was quickly looking as if it
had a particular bias, and that a lot of things weren't making sense.
Then I saw the signature and knew I had seen that name before.
Definitely a biased person.

Am I biased to pro-circumcision? YOU BET I AM. But it's based on
information, valid and verified scientific data, personal experience
and more, not on an agenda that I chose to adopt. I don't spend my days
looking for Internet forums, bulletin boards, chat rooms and
circumcision articles in the news to harvest as an opportunity to
proselytize every potentially new naive mom out there to my point of
view as I've seen so many anti-circ "activists" do. Why not just leave
them alone and let them work it out with their families and doctors,
and mind your own business? What great ill do they imagine they're
trying to resolve? There's nothing wrong anywhere but they act as if
they think there is.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:15:43 -0700, Zac wrote:

Am I biased to pro-circumcision? YOU BET I AM. But it's based on
information, valid and verified scientific data, personal experience
and more, not on an agenda that I chose to adopt.

That isn't necessarily bias, Zac. Isaac Newton, (allegedly) watching
the apple fall from the tree, simply used the evidence available to
deduce gravity. But he wasn't biased in favour of gravity - he just
saw that it existed.

Please don't get me wrong: you may well be biased (and if you want to,
you're obviously free to be so), but what you describe isn't necessarily
evidence of bias.