If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Flawed study: Letters To The Editor: Circumcision and HIV
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|