3 ms·

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.or

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.

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.