4 ms·

Isn't that the point? People will have risky sexual behavior whether circumcised or not, so if circumcision reduces the likelihood of AIDS transmission in peop

Isn't that the point? People will have risky sexual behavior whether circumcised or not, so if circumcision reduces the likelihood of AIDS transmission in people with risky sexual behavior, it's a net win. EDIT: the downthread comment clarified the parent comment for me. As I said even further downstream, if the study was done naively, where we simply took circumcised vs. uncircumcised people and compared their HIV rates, I would agree 100%. But the original study was taking a population of adult uncircumcised males in africa and circumcising 50% of them randomly, and then tracking their HIV infection rates. That should control for upbringing. From the studies: "In these studies, men who had been randomly assigned to the circumcision group had a 60% (South Africa), 53% (Kenya), and 51% (Uganda) lower incidence of HIV infection compared with men assigned to the wait-list group to be circumcised at the end of the study. In all three studies, a small number of men who had been assigned to be circumcised did not undergo the procedure; likewise, a small number of men assigned to the control groups did undergo circumcision. When the data were reanalyzed to account for these occurrences, men who had been circumcised had a 76% (South Africa), 60% (Kenya), and 55% (Uganda) reduction in risk for HIV infection compared with those who were not circumcised."

davidrusu 12y ago
I think the parent post was inferring the opposite causation, ie, the families that tend to give their children circumcisions tend to be conservative and would probably have a lower hiv infection rate even if they would not have circumcised their children. Under this interpretation, being conservative is the cause of both circumcision and low hiv rates, and circumcision is negatively correlated with hiv rates.
- mattzito 12y ago
  Ahhh, but that's due to a lack of understanding of the studies, which weren't "let's start with people who are circumcised and compare their behavior vs. those who aren't". It was, "We're going to take a chunk of individuals in Africa who engage in risky sex, and circumcise half of them, and then track how many of them end up with HIV after a few years"
- XorNot 12y ago
  Actually no, my point was the nature of HIV means that the timeframe of whether or not someone gets infected is somewhat irrelevant. If someone is engaging in risky sexual behavior, and they will continue to do so, then the 10 year span of whether or not they get HIV may be irrelevant since the disease itself is incurable and ultimately fatal because they will continue to expose themselves to the risk factor until they join the infected population. It's also highly questionable if it would even control an epidemic in Africa effectively, seeing as how the spread is caused by misinformation in a huge part - a widespread campaign of male circumcision would likely increase the exact behavior which spreads it.

davidrusu 12y ago

I think the parent post was inferring the opposite causation, ie, the families that tend to give their children circumcisions tend to be conservative and would probably have a lower hiv infection rate even if they would not have circumcised their children. Under this interpretation, being conservative is the cause of both circumcision and low hiv rates, and circumcision is negatively correlated with hiv rates.

mattzito 12y ago
Ahhh, but that's due to a lack of understanding of the studies, which weren't "let's start with people who are circumcised and compare their behavior vs. those who aren't". It was, "We're going to take a chunk of individuals in Africa who engage in risky sex, and circumcise half of them, and then track how many of them end up with HIV after a few years"
XorNot 12y ago
Actually no, my point was the nature of HIV means that the timeframe of whether or not someone gets infected is somewhat irrelevant. If someone is engaging in risky sexual behavior, and they will continue to do so, then the 10 year span of whether or not they get HIV may be irrelevant since the disease itself is incurable and ultimately fatal because they will continue to expose themselves to the risk factor until they join the infected population. It's also highly questionable if it would even control an epidemic in Africa effectively, seeing as how the spread is caused by misinformation in a huge part - a widespread campaign of male circumcision would likely increase the exact behavior which spreads it.