4 ms·

Definitively proven? I can’t wait to see that randomized controlled clinical trial. FWIW the language I see used is compelling evidence, where are you getting

Definitively proven? I can’t wait to see that randomized controlled clinical trial. FWIW the language I see used is compelling evidence, where are you getting definitively proven from?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
FWIW all I had to do was Google "male circumcision hiv clinical studies", it's not that hard to find: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ From the introduction: "Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60% [1-3]."
- nehal3m 4y ago
  Except a few results down the page there's an article that links a bunch of studies that claim the studies your article quotes are faulty: https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-not-make-much-difference-overall-male-hiv-incidence-caribbean https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-... https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-difference-hiv-infection-uk-gay-men https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-... https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/688334-1360190-9jjptjz/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monit... Which by the way would invalidate the CDC's encouragement of circumcision since that advice is based on the three studies your article a few comments up quotes: "The guidelines point to research, much of it done in sub-Saharan Africa, showing that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs, including HIV and the human papillomavirus, which can cause cancer."
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Wow, talk about cherry-picking, and apparently you picked all the rotten cherries. First, the comment I was responding to specifically requested randomized, controlled studies, which is what I responded with. I just looked at the first 3 of your links, and these are just observational/questionnaire studies, a decidedly less definitive source of evidence. Most hilarious to me is that your second link, titled "Male circumcision may not make much difference to overall male HIV incidence in Caribbean context" and from 2012, even has a big box at the top stating "This article is more than 10 years old. Click here for more recent articles on this topic". Clicking that link brings up a page with loads of articles, and a summary header: "Voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC) lowers the risk of female-to-male sexual HIV transmission by about 60%. VMMC is an important part of public health programmes in African countries with a high prevalence of HIV and a low rate of male circumcision." Even your own links argue against your points.
    - nehal3m 4y ago
      I don't think the age of an article invalidates it's findings by default, but of course I'd expect new insights with the passage of time. I'm doubting myself as ever in light of your comment, but the fact that there are studies, with any credibility at all, with a conclusion contrary to your earlier point namely that it is "definitively proven to greatly reduce the chance of HIV transmission from females to males" shows that that's pushing it at the very least. And even if you're right, that doesn't excuse genital mutilation.
- drekipus 4y ago
  There is two factors to this: 1. Less sex 2. Less moisture kept on the penis during sex. But I don't think permanently altering a baby's penis is worth the trade off of being able to have sex with people who suffer HIV. Maybe in Africa where there's nothing else, but not in a world with better medical services

Definitively proven? I can’t wait to see that randomized controlled clinical trial. FWIW the language I see used is compelling evidence, where are you getting definitively proven from?

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

FWIW all I had to do was Google "male circumcision hiv clinical studies", it's not that hard to find: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ From the introduction: "Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60% [1-3]."

nehal3m 4y ago
Except a few results down the page there's an article that links a bunch of studies that claim the studies your article quotes are faulty: https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-not-make-much-difference-overall-male-hiv-incidence-caribbean https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-... https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-difference-hiv-infection-uk-gay-men https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-... https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/688334-1360190-9jjptjz/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monit... Which by the way would invalidate the CDC's encouragement of circumcision since that advice is based on the three studies your article a few comments up quotes: "The guidelines point to research, much of it done in sub-Saharan Africa, showing that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs, including HIV and the human papillomavirus, which can cause cancer."
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Wow, talk about cherry-picking, and apparently you picked all the rotten cherries. First, the comment I was responding to specifically requested randomized, controlled studies, which is what I responded with. I just looked at the first 3 of your links, and these are just observational/questionnaire studies, a decidedly less definitive source of evidence. Most hilarious to me is that your second link, titled "Male circumcision may not make much difference to overall male HIV incidence in Caribbean context" and from 2012, even has a big box at the top stating "This article is more than 10 years old. Click here for more recent articles on this topic". Clicking that link brings up a page with loads of articles, and a summary header: "Voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC) lowers the risk of female-to-male sexual HIV transmission by about 60%. VMMC is an important part of public health programmes in African countries with a high prevalence of HIV and a low rate of male circumcision." Even your own links argue against your points.
  - nehal3m 4y ago
    I don't think the age of an article invalidates it's findings by default, but of course I'd expect new insights with the passage of time. I'm doubting myself as ever in light of your comment, but the fact that there are studies, with any credibility at all, with a conclusion contrary to your earlier point namely that it is "definitively proven to greatly reduce the chance of HIV transmission from females to males" shows that that's pushing it at the very least. And even if you're right, that doesn't excuse genital mutilation.
drekipus 4y ago
There is two factors to this: 1. Less sex 2. Less moisture kept on the penis during sex. But I don't think permanently altering a baby's penis is worth the trade off of being able to have sex with people who suffer HIV. Maybe in Africa where there's nothing else, but not in a world with better medical services