Circumcision

POSTED BY: fredgiblet
UPDATED: Saturday, March 31, 2007 09:29
VIEWED: 6061
PAGE 1 of 1

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:52 PM

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11481-who-hails-circumcision-as-
vital-in-hiv-fight.html

I remember reading something about this a while ago and wondering why there wasn't more pushing for circumcision. I guess I read about it when they were just starting the studies.

P.S. This obviously proves that HIV is a Jewish conspiracy right?

GRIZWALD

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:58 PM

"Newly circumcised men should also avoid sex for at least six weeks, until they’re healed."

Ummmm, well, yeah...

___________________________________________________
High Priestess of Pork and Ag-Related Activities of the MYTHICAL LAND OF IOWA

Click on my profile for my Annoyingly Long List of Firefly Links.

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grizwald:
"Newly circumcised men should also avoid sex for at least six weeks, until they’re healed."

Ummmm, well, yeah...

I once saw an interview with somebody whose NGO organised free circumcisions in an African country, and they explicitly told the men who were operated on to not have sex until they've fully healed. So naturally, the next morning one of the people operated on came back because the wounds started bleeding out while he was having sex the night before.

The advice may seem obvious to you and me, but not everyone is blessed with a brain.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:06 PM

I'm going to call bullshit on this one. HIV is about exchange of bodily fluids and circumcision doesn't exactly restrict fluid exchange to any real degree. Personally, I think that there is a cultural thing going on here that reduces HIV infection rates that is coupled to circumcision rather than circumcision itself doing any real good. Stats can be very misleading in this way.

Then again, the linked article doesn't give any real information regarding why circumcision has this effect.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:10 PM

I'm totally with ya Sig, it's a load, but that's what we get from number jockeys as opposed to real scientists.
"and men must realise that it doesn’t provide full protection," HOW ABOUT LIKE, NO PROTECTION?
WTF?

GRRRChrisisall

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:13 PM

IIRC (and this is going off of an article I read a few years ago), the foreskin acts like a little cup and holds some of the fluids inside of it where they get in via small cuts and tears in the skin.

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:21 PM

Here's an explanation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4371384.stm

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:22 PM

I googled "circumcision hiv" and skimmed the first few pages of results. There is a couple anti- sites and most of the pro- sites are simply repeating the same story. It seems that the split of unique information on the sites is roughly 50-50.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
IIRC (and this is going off of an article I read a few years ago), the foreskin acts like a little cup and holds some of the fluids inside of it where they get in via small cuts and tears in the skin.

Yeah, and mosquitos can't transmit the AIDS virus. And dry-humping can't get you pregnant. And margerine is more healthy than butter. I know cowpatties when I smell 'em

.

Doc Chrisisall

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I googled "circumcision hiv" and skimmed the first few pages of results. There is a couple anti- sites and most of the pro- sites are simply repeating the same story.

The first one that comes up (the one I linked) says: "Circumcision is thought to help protect against HIV because cells under the foreskin are vulnerable to the virus."

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:29 PM

"When the foreskin is removed, the skin on the head of the penis becomes less sensitive and so less likely to bleed, thereby reducing the risk of infection."
Oh puhleeze. How many times have you shagged until bleeding? Less sensitive indeed. Like uncircumcised dudes never play with themselves.
And if they float, they're witches.

BS Chrisisall

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Oh puhleeze. How many times have you shagged until bleeding?

On a completely unrelated note, I think it's really cool how more and more Americans are using the word 'shag' these days.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
I think it's really cool how more and more Americans are using the word 'shag' these days.

It's a Spike thing, mate.

Souled Chrisisall

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

IIRC (and this is going off of an article I read a few years ago), the foreskin acts like a little cup and holds some of the fluids inside of it where they get in via small cuts and tears in the skin.

Although that /is/ certainly true, the same fluids are *far* more abundant where they originate, where they must be acquired from in the first place. It is because of this that I see no benefit in circumcision as a way to lower the risk of contracting HIV.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

The first one that comes up (the one I linked) says: "Circumcision is thought to help protect against HIV because cells under the foreskin are vulnerable to the virus."

One term to counter this: urethral orifice.

EDIT: From the same article, "HIV infection rates are lower among groups in Africa who practise circumcision, but it was not known if this was due to cultural differences."

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Although that /is/ certainly true, the same fluids are *far* more abundant where they originate, where they must be acquired from in the first place. It is because of this that I see no benefit in circumcision as a way to lower the risk of contracting HIV.

As I understand it, uninfected males get the virus from infected females because the vaginal fluids carry it. So if the tissue in the penis that's most receptive to the virus is removed, and this tissue also acts as a "cup" that possibly holds small quantities of vaginal fluid even after the penis has been removed (thereby increasing the exposure to the virus), theoretically it should decrease the risk of infection.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

GRIZWALD

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:05 PM

The things we talk about here.

___________________________________________________
High Priestess of Pork and Ag-Related Activities of the MYTHICAL LAND OF IOWA

Click on my profile for my Annoyingly Long List of Firefly Links.

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:05 PM

Besides, what does the W.H.O. and UNAIDS know about the subject, eh SigmaNunki? Who cares about Africans anyways.

Posting to stir stuff up.

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Grizwald:
The things we talk about here.

This is important stuff! If we here in RWED don't solve the world's problems, who on Earth will!?

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:09 PM

@BigDamnNobody:

Read what I quoted from the BBC article. It seems as though they don't know much.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Read what I quoted from the BBC article. It seems as though they don't know much.

I've heard the same thing said about man-made global warming. Should we stop investigating that as well?

Posting to stir stuff up.

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:19 PM

@Khyron:

But, that's only the exterior. What about the fluids that *will* enter through the urethral orifice. Seems to me that the interior of the body will be more vulnerable to a virus than something on the exterior.

Also, from reading the article, there is a fatal flaw with this study: they didn't control the number of sexual experiences nor did they control the number of females that they had sexual contact with that were infected with HIV. If only because of this, this study has absolutely no validity at all.

IMO this study was ill conceived and is quite amoral.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

KHYRON

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:19 PM

They say it's not certain that it'll be an effective solution. They also say it's worth a shot. Should one risk not doing it just because it might not work (keeping in mind that it doesn't harm the indivduals... unless they do something really stupid like have sex before it's healed)?

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

I've heard the same thing said about man-made global warming. Should we stop investigating that as well?

Sophistry.

What I'm talking about is the irresponsibility of publicizing positive results when it is far from conclusive (which /is/ admitted in the BBC article). When there is no control over the experiment (which /is/ implied in the BBC article).

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

They say it's not certain that it'll be an effective solution. They also say it's worth a shot. Should one risk not doing it just because it might not work (keeping in mind that it doesn't harm the indivduals... unless they do something really stupid like have sex before it's healed)?

Although, circumcision itself doesn't harm the individual (pretty much), this will install a false sense of security in the majority of people. I believe it is this that must be understood.

Also, this experiment does seem to be a *very* poorly designed one. e.g. Did they control how many times these men had sex? Did they control how many times they had sex with someone who was HIV positive? Did they control how many men were infected walking in (HIV can stay undetectable for some time after infection)? etc.

Basically, there doesn't really seem to be any scientific controls on this experiment. And until an experiment comes along that does, I'll call bullshit. Especially given the fact of the urethral orifice.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FREDGIBLET

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 11:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Especially given the fact of the urethral orifice.

The urethra orifice is controlled for by the fact that everyone has one.

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But, that's only the exterior. What about the fluids that *will* enter through the urethral orifice. Seems to me that the interior of the body will be more vulnerable to a virus than something on the exterior.

Although I never bothered to check afterwards (hey, I'm a guy, I'm already fast asleep

), I think it's reasonable to assume that there are still some fluids inside the tract which prevent vaginal fluids penetrating too far into the penis. Aside from that, it's only been said that this treatment may reduce the risk of infection, not eliminate it. The risk of infection through the urethral orifice is still present, but overall risk of infection is reduced.

Quote:
Also, from reading the article, there is a fatal flaw with this study: they didn't control the number of sexual experiences nor did they control the number of females that they had sexual contact with that were infected with HIV. If only because of this, this study has absolutely no validity at all.

3,280 sexually active men took part in the study, just less than half of which decided to get circumcised, so that's more than 1,500 men for either case. This is quite a large sample size, and it's justified to assume that in the case of such large sample sizes environmental factors such as number of sexual experiences and number of infected females will be very similar (law of averages). So in my opinion the study is valid. Whether it's conclusive is another question, but I find no reason to dismiss this study out of hand because I don't regard your criticisms of it as valid.

Quote:
IMO this study [...] is quite amoral.

Participation was voluntary, in which case it can't be immoral.

Quote:
What I'm talking about is the irresponsibility of publicizing positive results when it is far from conclusive (which /is/ admitted in the BBC article).

In which case the media wouldn't be allowed to report on any science news.

Quote:
When there is no control over the experiment (which /is/ implied in the BBC article).

Where was it implied? The sentence "The South African trial, conducted by a team of French and South African researchers and sponsored by ANRS (the French National Agency of Research on Aids)" implies that there was a controlling body.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Although, circumcision itself doesn't harm the individual (pretty much), this will install a false sense of security in the majority of people. I believe it is this that must be understood.

All media reports that I have heard and read on this say that it at best reduces the risk of infection, it doesn't eliminate it. The BBC article itself has a mini-headline 'Not a condom substitute', and we can, I think, assume that the researchers will have told the participants the same. Whether the participants follow this advice or not is out of the researchers' control, but seeing as condoms are widely available even in rural African areas and yet hardly used, trying to reduce the risk of infection through other means shouldn't be dismissed simply because these alternative methods aren't fool-proof.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
IMO this study [...] is quite amoral.
Participation was voluntary, in which case it can't be amoral.

It can be immoral if the participation was based off of false premises.

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
It can be immoral if the participation was based off of false premises.

How so? For one thing, in general, if the premise isn't known to be false at the start of a study, the study can't be immoral. Even if the premise turns out to be false, it still doesn't make the study immoral. Testing on willing participants is common practice in many medical fields, for instance new drug treatments are tested on volunteers. If the new treatments don't work, does that mean conducting the test was immoral?

Secondly, "The South African trial [...] took place in the Orange Farm area near Johannesburg, where male circumcision in adulthood is a common but not universal practice.". Chances are many of those circumcised would have been circumcised anyway. All the researchers did after administering the circumcisions (which, again, were voluntary) was monitor the number of HIV infections in both groups.

In fact, circumcisions in rural communities in South Africa aren't done very well and quite a number of people die due to infection. We can assume that the researchers did the circumcisions in a medically safe way and therefore indirectly saved a couple of lives (in those cases where the men wanted to get circumcised anyway).

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:

The urethra orifice is controlled for by the fact that everyone has one.

The plethora of other factors that I mentioned above are _not_. Which means that the urethra orifice factor isn't necessarily accounted for either.

Basically, this experiment doesn't have a control group because it doesn't control either group. This invalidates the findings no matter how "logical" they are (we all know that just because something is logical doesn't mean it's true).

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Basically, this experiment doesn't have a control group because it doesn't control either group.

It controls both groups as much as it needs to. Don't forget, this is supposed to monitor the rates of infection amongst circumcised and uncircumcised men when they go about their lives naturally. If the reseachers had said: "Okay, you have sex with only these three chicks for the next year, and you over there, you only get to have sex with these three, etc.", people would (rightly) be complaining that the study was artificial. In THAT case it wouldn't have been valid.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

STINKINGROSE

Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:52 AM

nurse says:

Oh for crying out loud, just wear the damned condom.

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:57 AM

Nurse and everyone else too. But in some parts of the world, safe sex is seen as uncool and unmanly, or people just can't be bothered.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Although I never bothered to check afterwards (hey, I'm a guy, I'm already fast asleep ), I think it's reasonable to assume that there are still some fluids inside the tract which prevent vaginal fluids penetrating too far into the penis. Aside from that, it's only been said that this treatment may reduce the risk of infection, not eliminate it. The risk of infection through the urethral orifice is still present, but overall risk of infection is reduced.

Although there /may/ still be "man fluid" in the penis that /may/ restrict further flow of "woman fluid" this does _not_ account for fluid exchange during sex. Also, although the "man fluid" tends to be fairly viscous it is still a fluid. By definition, fluid exchange is still more than just likely.

I must also point out that toughening the skin on the outside of the penis by circumcision is only one possible attack vector for HIV. First off, it doesn't prevent infection through this skin and it certainly doesn't even remotely stop fluid exchange through the urethral orifice.

Thus, I am seriously skeptical of the validity of this so called study i.e. for this logic to work, it must be shown that the skin "under the hood" is a primary infection vector for HIV. And given how this study was done, IMO this hasn't even remotely been established.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

3,280 sexually active men took part in the study, just less than half of which decided to get circumcised, so that's more than 1,500 men for either case. This is quite a large sample size, and it's justified to assume that in the case of such large sample sizes environmental factors such as number of sexual experiences and number of infected females will be very similar (law of averages). So in my opinion the study is valid. Whether it's conclusive is another question, but I find no reason to dismiss this study out of hand because I don't regard your criticisms of it as valid.

Actually your law of averages doesn't apply as the sample size /is/ quite low; it is _not_ a representative sample (~3,280 vs a population size of 45.3 million). Thus, your "law of averages" remark does not apply.

Also, having sex with a infected woman is a crap shoot. One just doesn't know.

Now, if the guys were all sexually active in the exact same place and only had sex with woman in the exact same place, and those woman only had sex with the woman in the exact same place, then we'd have something. But, the fact of the matter, is that in any given area, these factors are going to be different, which makes the risk factor different.

Basically, there are *many* non-scientific aspects to this study.

But, let's say that your criticisms of my criticisms are valid. Tell me, what was the exposure rate? After all, knowing this is critical of knowing whether this study is valid or not.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Participation was voluntary, in which case it can't be immoral.

You're assuming that the participants are educated and have full awareness of the consequences of the possible outcomes. This is a very bad assumption given the region of the world we are talking about.

IMO, these "researchers" are taking advantage of uneducated people by getting them to be involved in *very* high risk behaviour.

To use some hyperbole, an equivalent study might be to get people to play Russian Roulette seeing if wearing a hockey helmet would help in preventing there grey matter from being splattered on the wall.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Quote:

What I'm talking about is the irresponsibility of publicizing positive results when it is far from conclusive (which /is/ admitted in the BBC article).

In which case the media wouldn't be allowed to report on any science news.

LOL. It's the researchers that think that this study is valid and then tell the media. The media then trusts the researchers and publishes an ar

SIGMANUNKI

Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
[It controls both groups as much as it needs to. Don't forget, this is supposed to monitor the rates of infection amongst circumcised and uncircumcised men when they go about their lives naturally. If the reseachers had said: "Okay, you have sex with only these three chicks for the next year, and you over there, you only get to have sex with these three, etc.", people would (rightly) be complaining that the study was artificial. In THAT case it wouldn't have been valid.

Actually no. This study was meant to see if circumcision reduced the infection rate. Or at least that is what they are looking for based on the conclusion. Because if they were going through there natural lives, then the use of condoms would invalidate the study.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 2:33 AM

It's the middle of the night over here and I don't have time to respond to the whole thing now, but I need to ask:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I question the ethics of people who would even think to ask people to have unprotected sex.

Where is it written that they did that? The research was never about "have unprotected sex", it was "go about having sex as you usually do" - which, in many cases, happens to be unprotected. That's the way I understood it, if I'm wrong then please show me the relevant quote so that I can retract my statement that the study wasn't immoral.

More tomorrow.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

STINKINGROSE

Thursday, March 29, 2007 11:36 AM

This thread has taken on the tone that they tend to get just before someone calls someone else "poopy head".

You know, discussion becomes heated discussion, becomes:

"Poopy head"
"aardvark breath"
"mango hoarder"
"illegitimate rat purchaser"
"neener neener neener, you ain't got no weiner"

One (admittedly uncontrolled, possibly bad to run, and relatively small) study does not a medical revelation make. Just because it's the only data out there to look at this particular (questionable) variable does not mean it's good data.

Additionally I do not see anywhere in the article where it states that the subjects were only having sex with women.
Blood and bodily fluids is the usual vector for the HIV virus.

Just a thought: anyone having sex enough to form a serious callus on the glans is doing a whole lotta rubbin' babe. I've seen many penises (professionally and a few privately) and the difference between circumsized vs. not is minimal.

Total abstinence and lack of IV drug use is the only 100% effective means of reducing transmission.. but this is the real world where people have sex, do not always follow directions given to them by researchers (who may not have been taught basic statistics and how to design and run a good experiment), and either do not understand or do not care what risk they put themselves and others at by their behavior.

Someone briefly touched on the whole "already positive but testing negative at the beginning of the study" issue. It is commonly accepted that there is a 3 month window period (some argue closer to 6) where the virus may not have triggered an immune response large enough to cause a positive reaction on a test.

Both circumsized and uncircumcised males contract the HIV virus. Period. Fact. Really.

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:48 PM

Quote:
By definition, fluid exchange is still more than just likely.

Right. I question the amount of fluid exchange that occurs in the urethal orifice, but that's irrelevant, because, again, circumcision doesn't claim to eliminate the risk of infection, it claims to reduce it. Of course fluid interchange and infection may still occur, there are no claims to the contrary.

Quote:
And given how this study was done, IMO this hasn't even remotely been established.

The study was about rates of infection, not establishing how exactly circumcision seems to reduce the risk of infection. There's no reason to dismiss the study just because one isn't sure why the results might be true.

Quote:
Actually your law of averages doesn't apply as the sample size /is/ quite low; it is _not_ a representative sample (~3,280 vs a population size of 45.3 million). Thus, your "law of averages" remark does not apply.

The size of the population is irrelevent.

For statistical results to have some credibility, the sample size needs to be large enough, and most researchers (in almost any field) would be quite happy with a sample size of around 1500 for each case. Factors such as the mean and variance play a role, but in general, for a sample size of 1000, the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of the actual values that one wants to measure, and for 1500 this would be slightly improved. Under these conditions statistical results apply, amongst other things "my" law of averages.

Quote:
Now, if the guys were all sexually active in the exact same place and only had sex with woman in the exact same place, and those woman only had sex with the woman in the exact same place, then we'd have something.

We'd have something, but something that's an artificial result. In epidemiology, if one looks at the rates at which a disease spreads inside a population one can't take infected and uninfected members of the population out of it and then only look at the consequences of their interactions, one has to let the population go about its usual ways and take representative samples to tell one what's going on.

Quote:
But, the fact of the matter, is that in any given area, these factors are going to be different, which makes the risk factor different.

If you're talking about differences inside the geographical area in which the study was conducted, it's fair to assume that the participants were well-mixed, i.e. it's uinlikely that out of 3,280 people, 90% of those who lived in the Eastern half wanted circumcisions and 90% on the Western half didn't. If you're talking about wider regional differences, this was a relative measure, not an absolute one, so these differences shouldn't play a role.

Quote:
Basically, there are *many* non-scientific aspects to this study.

IMO if one dismisses the methods used in and results from this study, one should also dismiss a plethora of other studies that were conducted in a similar way (and are accepted). This sort of research doesn't give exact results, it only gives an indication of what the exact results might be.

Quote:
But, let's say that your criticisms of my criticisms are valid.

Okay!

Quote:
Tell me, what was the exposure rate? After all, knowing this is critical of knowing whether this study is valid or not.

Do you mean number of times the participants had sex with an infected person on average? If you mean this, I have no idea, nor do I think the researchers would have such statistics. Once again, I think the sample size is large enough to assume that such factors would be very similar.

Quote:
You're assuming that the participants are educated and have full awareness of the consequences of the possible outcomes. This is a very bad assumption given the region of the world we are talking about.

Many people in that area would have been circumcised anyway, and aside from the circumcisions all that the researchers did was monitor the rates of infection afterwards. As long as the circumcised parti

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by stinkingrose:
This thread has taken on the tone that they tend to get just before someone calls someone else "poopy head".

Sigma seems to be a level-headed guy, so I can't see that happening. I can't even see this discussion becoming heated, it's just a discussion.

Quote:
One (admittedly uncontrolled, possibly bad to run, and relatively small) study does not a medical revelation make.

It was controlled enough and large enough (we have no means of judging how well-run the study was), and it's not supposed to be a medical revelation, the results are an indication that there might be something to these circumcision claims and that the link needs to be explored further.

Quote:
Additionally I do not see anywhere in the article where it states that the subjects were only having sex with women.
Blood and bodily fluids is the usual vector for the HIV virus.

Sigma and I were talking about heterosexual intercourse because, well, it's more common and 'vaginal fluids' are easier to talk about that the other stuff. Doesn't mean that homosexuality was excluded.

Quote:
Both circumsized and uncircumcised males contract the HIV virus. Period. Fact. Really.

That's not in doubt and not what's being discussed.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

KANEMAN

Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:01 PM

Sig you should have stopped as soon as you realized Khyron's argument is much stronger than yours. Common sense would suggest that if the skin is damp and more sensitive there is a greater risk of viral infection. Is this the most scientific study? No. Is it even possible to do a controlled experiment about the most random act(sex)...No. What this study did was allow nature to take it's course, and reported the results. There is no claim of HIV elimination, just a reduction in risk. Have you noticed your cronnies on this board have jumped ship? They leave you here alone to sound like a jack-ass.

Secondly, all men should be circumcised. The uncircumcised pecker looks ridiculous, smells funny, and is as sanitary as the underside of long fingernails on a hand that digs in cow shit. Now, not that I care or anything, because the more guys that walk around this planet with a smelly , ridiculous looking noodle, the less competition I have when it comes to shagging bitches. (Women feel free to chime in here. You girls agree with me... I know you do.) I have many girlfriends that talk openly about this. They all laugh at uncircumcised men, find it ugly, and unsatisfying. If you are one of the unfortunate guys with a hilariously scary looking snail-driver...sorry.

So Sig, if your parents left you to walk around this planet with a funny looking and smelly pecker, be mad at them...not the world. You can always go get it done now. Just remember to not have sex for 6 weeks...

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 29, 2007 3:14 PM

What about personal hygiene? Oh that's right... most guys don't believe in it...

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
It can be immoral if the participation was based off of false premises.
How so? For one thing, in general, if the premise isn't known to be false at the start of a study, the study can't be immoral. Even if the premise turns out to be false, it still doesn't make the study immoral. Testing on willing participants is common practice in many medical fields, for instance new drug treatments are tested on volunteers. If the new treatments don't work, does that mean conducting the test was immoral?

I was referring more to the idea of telling people that a test is perfectly safe, thus getting their cooperation, when the test is known not to be. Not saying that it applies here, just that in general a study that includes willing participants that aren't made aware of known dangers of a test is still immoral.

KHYRON

Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:40 PM

Oh I see. Yes, I agree with you on that.

EDIT: I thought your previous post was referring to this specific case when I responded to it. Thanks for clearing it up, obviously you're right.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 29, 2007 6:04 PM

AFA as testing on human subjects... Tests have been cut short on moral grounds, either because a treatment was found to have negative results (example- beta carotene on smokers) or because the treatment is SO effective that continuing with a placebo is considered immoral.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

STINKINGROSE

Friday, March 30, 2007 2:41 AM

Like I said...

poopyhead fight in the offing.

(OK that was not only tasteless it was disgusting... sorry.)

So I'll just pop out and let you all continue with a relatively civilized and calm discussion. If I'm lucky the dissonant voices will not follow.

You're on your own, fellas.

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, March 30, 2007 4:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Where is it written that they did that? The research was never about "have unprotected sex", it was "go about having sex as you usually do" - which, in many cases, happens to be unprotected. That's the way I understood it, if I'm wrong then please show me the relevant quote so that I can retract my statement that the study wasn't immoral.

More tomorrow.

And where is stated that the study was about people going about there normal business?

Btw, I infer that the men were told that they should have protected sex because in the BBC article it states that "The researchers decided at this point it would be unethical to continue the study." Why would it be unethical to continue a study in which they are only taking blood from time to time?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

SIGMANUNKI

Friday, March 30, 2007 7:23 AM

NOTE: I've attempted to proof this, but as you can see, it's rather long. It's also quite late and I'm *very* tired. If anyone that reads this and finds it overly aggressive, etc, please assume that is something that I would have fixed and not be offended by it. And now without further ado, I'm off to zzzzzz...

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

Right. I question the amount of fluid exchange that occurs in the urethal orifice, but that's irrelevant, because, again, circumcision doesn't claim to eliminate the risk of infection, it claims to reduce it. Of course fluid interchange and infection may still occur, there are no claims to the contrary.

A hole shoved into a place where bodily fluids are rather abundant. How exactly do you question the amount of fluid exchange?

But, the question does result in another factor that isn't accounted for; the time of exposure i.e. someone who has sex for 2 hrs is going to stand a far greater chance of getting infected than some that has sex for 10 minutes (or less, poor guy/gal

).

Also, as (I believe) someone above mention, there's the whole IV drug thing. Which isn't stated to be controlled for. Hell, some of these guys could use condoms 100% of the time, yet get HIV through a needle.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

The study was about rates of infection, not establishing how exactly circumcision seems to reduce the risk of infection. There's no reason to dismiss the study just because one isn't sure why the results might be true.

Actually from the conclusion given at the New Scientist article:

"""
It may not seem like the kindest cut, but circumcision has been hailed as a vital new way to combat HIV. In a report issued on 28 March, the World Health Organization and UNAIDS issued a series of recommendations to increase rates of circumcision in countries where the HIV problem is most serious.
"""

They have concluded that circumcision reduces infection rates when they also state (BBC article):

"""
HIV infection rates are lower among groups in Africa who practise circumcision, but it was not known if this was due to cultural differences.
"""

Basically, they have _not_ established that circumcision actually helps matters. And that's by there own admission. Yet they are recommending that a great deal of effort be expended to circumcise men because of these "results".

In other words, if these results are cultural, then one does _not_ need to be circumcised to get any benefits. One just needs to have there attitude "re-educated".

These guys are running off of circumstantial evidence and they even admit it!

Basically, these guys are saying things that completely contradict what you're saying here.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:

The size of the population is irrelevent.

For statistical results to have some credibility, the sample size needs to be large enough, and most researchers (in almost any field) would be quite happy with a sample size of around 1500 for each case. Factors such as the mean and variance play a role, but in general, for a sample size of 1000, the chances are 95% of coming within +/- 3% of the actual values that one wants to measure, and for 1500 this would be slightly improved. Under these conditions statistical results apply, amongst other things "my" law of averages.

Ok, let's assume you're right (my wife agrees with you btw). Tell me how this is representative of the population.

The researchers admit that (BBC article):

"""
took place in the Orange Farm area near Johannesburg
"""

To do a study in /only/ one place is rather poor form. When companies do studies in North America, to gain statistical significance, they do the study in several cities across the country.

There are a variety of reasons for doing so, but the one that is most relevant here is difference in lifestyle. Though diet will probably play a strong role as well. Anyone know how rich Orange Farm is? This /will/ play a r

KHYRON

Friday, March 30, 2007 10:09 PM

I don't have a lot of time today, so my answers are pretty short, terse and to the point. That's actually my preferred debating style, but I've been told a couple of times before that it comes across as impatient, condescending and aggressive. It's not meant to be like that, but for that reason I almost always expand my arguments here in RWED a bit. However, I don't have the time to expand the arguments today, and the post is long enough as it is, so if I come across as aggressive and condescending at times, I'm not trying to be.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
And where is stated that the study was about people going about there normal business?

Seems a bit unrealistic to assume the researchers thought they could control the sex lives of 3,280 horny young men.

Quote:
Btw, I infer that the men were told that they should have protected sex because in the BBC article it states that "The researchers decided at this point it would be unethical to continue the study." Why would it be unethical to continue a study in which they are only taking blood from time to time?

It would have been appropriate to also quote the sentence that follows it:

"The researchers decided at this point it would be unethical to continue the study.

It was stopped and the uncircumcised men were offered circumcision. "

It seems like the researchers were convinced enough that circumcisions do lower the risk of infection and therefore to refuse circumcisions to the uncircumcised because the study was ongoing would be immoral, hence they broke off the study and offered these men circumcisions, since being circumcised might help prevent HIV infection. In principle it's similar to something that SignyM correctly pointed out above:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
AFA as testing on human subjects... Tests have been cut short on moral grounds, either because a treatment was found to have negative results (example- beta carotene on smokers) or because the treatment is SO effective that continuing with a placebo is considered immoral.

Alright, we're not dealing with a placebo here, but the applicability of the latter case he mentioned is clear.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Right. I question the amount of fluid exchange that occurs in the urethal orifice, but that's irrelevant, because, again, circumcision doesn't claim to eliminate the risk of infection, it claims to reduce it. Of course fluid interchange and infection may still occur, there are no claims to the contrary.

A hole shoved into a place where bodily fluids are rather abundant. How exactly do you question the amount of fluid exchange?

Stick a garden hose into a muddy hole in the ground and turn it on. How much muddy water is going to flow into the hose?

Even before ejaculation there are fluids excreted by the penis (for lubrication - this is why sex is bearable even if one didn't bother with foreplay or the missus is in one of her 'I can't be aroused until you take out the garbage' moods), making it difficult for fluids to flow into it.

Quote:
But, the question does result in another factor that isn't accounted for; the time of exposure i.e. someone who has sex for 2 hrs is going to stand a far greater chance of getting infected than some that has sex for 10 minutes (or less, poor guy/gal ).

Also, as (I believe) someone above mention, there's the whole IV drug thing. Which isn't stated to be controlled for. Hell, some of these guys could use condoms 100% of the time, yet get HIV through a needle.

You can come with all of these different factors, my counter-argument will always be the same: the sample sizes are large enough so that no significant difference in environmental factors between the two groups should be present.

But let's turn it around. Tell me, why would an uncircumcised man (say) be more likely to be infected by a needle than a circumcised man? Why would a circumcised man (say) be more likely to

FREDGIBLET

Friday, March 30, 2007 11:42 PM

First off I'd like to say thanks Khyron for putting the effort that I'm not willing to into defending this.

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
On the other hand, most scientists, who indeed should be skeptical, would react like this: "Huh, that's interesting. I wonder if further studies would back this up."

This was my exact reaction when I read the article from a few years back.

Quote:
In fact, there are so many variables that they are _not_ accounting for it isn't funny.

Actually because of the number of variables the manner in which the test was conducted makes sense, controlling for every single variable in the course of 2 years of human life would require an extremely regimented system bordering on imprisonment and would have to include absurdly unethical activities such as knowingly and purposefully exposing the test subjects to an incurable disease. The only way that makes any sense is to let them free and see what they do.

Quote:
Quote:
Quite frankly, I find such pre-mature announcements in rather poor taste. And when it comes to the specific topic here quite dangerous and as such, ethically questionable. This really should have stayed in the literature until at least the other two studies had been completed. But, that would have stolen the thunder of the WHO and UNAIDS (or at least the people involved in this particular study). After all, fame requires one to be first.
Yes, the media shouldn't be reporting the latest scientific and medical findings. Informing people what's going on in the world of science and medicine is, uhm, just wrong... for some reason.

Actually Sigma makes a decent point here, too often the media makes scientific announcements before the research is conclusive and then fails to keep up with the story later giving people false impressions about the science in question. In debates on evolution Piltdown Man is frequently brought up. Piltdown Man was widely trumpeted by the mass media but never corroborated by science, eventually being exposed as a fake, but that was never shown by the media. To an outside observer it appears as if the scientists believed in Piltdown Man and to this day it is still used by anti-evolution groups, if the mass media had waited for some sort of consensus to form before rushing off to write their stories then this persistent bit of mis-information wouldn't be around.

KHYRON

Friday, March 30, 2007 11:49 PM

Regarding the media, just because it doesn't follow up on many of the contentious studies it reports on surely doesn't mean that it shouldn't be reporting them at all. Partial information is better than no information, and those who are interested can follow up on it by doing personal research, and those who don't will at least have heard about the research that's being reported on. As long as the media doesn't report it as fact but as an open question (as, in this case, the BBC article does), I have no problems with it.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

FREDGIBLET

Saturday, March 31, 2007 2:42 AM

Given the choice between uninformed and partially informed I'd say it's better for people to be partially informed.

Given the choice between uninformed and MISinformed on the other hand, I think uninformed is better.

KHYRON

Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:29 AM

If the preferred news service is credible, I think it's a case of having more of the former and less of the latter.

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."