Thread:User talk:WaitingforGodot/Quick question for you.../reply (4)

When the scientfic and medial community looked at these "compelling" studies they found these things.


 * 1) the studies did not follow proper protocol.  They were in fact "stopped" when "good results" came up.
 * 2) the studies massively misreported the actual benefit.  They stated 40-60% likelyhood of not getting AIDS; Scientists and the medical community who are experts in statistics restated those numbers as a 2-5% improvement in prevention of aids.
 * 3) The study's numbers have never been duplicated.
 * 4) The studies do not apply to gay men, or men in the western world; just those is "Africa" which seems very very very odd.  men are men-hiv is hiv.  if it works in one country, it should work in another...
 * 5) When you "follow the money" you find the studies funded by people who were already advocating circumcision for *religious* reasons.

finally
 * 1) no medical consensus has ever explained the mechanism for WHY circumcision could possibly help keep you from getting aids.  there are some "theories' printed, but they simply aren't compelling scientifically.

As to your main point - all else being equal, let's say there really was a reason this might be medially advised. It's medically advidse to PREVENT something that can be prevented a different way. And it's not like vaccination, or giving your child a healthy diet. It cuts part of you off. I do not see where harming little boys to *maybe* protect them from something that actual EDUCATION and condoms WILL protect them from - is a valid reason.

I joked about the fact that cutting off a teen girl's tits will insure she never gets Cancer of the mammory glands - but that doesn't strick me as a compelling reason to do it.