A public health policy weblog
411 from the site:
Male Circumcision and HIV provides a place for a public health policy debate on the linking of male circumcision and HIV/AIDS. It seeks to address questions of cost versus benefit, the effectiveness of circumcision in the fight against HIV/AIDS in real world settings, and the differing points of view of researchers, the media, and all contributors to the policy discussion.
This site needs exposure. We need people to come here and debate this issue. It isn't going away any time soon and neither are we. Therefore, get in the game and add your two cents to these life-altering issues. That's right. You can be a part of this website by leaving comments, linking to us, talking about us, leaving a tip in the Tip Jar, and passing our URL on to anyone interested in both HIV/AIDS prevention and the preservation and health of the human body. Thanks for visiting and for helping.
Check it out.
I think the site contributes more to the problem than it helps. It is merely an anti-circumcision site dressed up in 'public health' robes. To take the overwhelming evidence that male circumcision reduces female to male HIV infection across a population by 60% and try put some negative spin on it serves no 'public health' purpose at all. While a preference for an uncircumcised or circumcised partner for that matter is quite acceptable what in my opinion is not is to take scientific findings and twist them to serve a personal agenda. Yes the site is worth a visit if only to see the extent one individual will go to further his own agenda. Has the man no shame?
ReplyDelete^^ overwhelming evidence that male circumcision reduces female to male HIV infection across a population by 60% ^^
ReplyDeleteYou're way off base. The point is that the number is a lie and the researchers know it. Google Bailey's or Halperin's or DeCock's previous pro-circ writings and you'll realize you're on the wrong side of this one.
The South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda "controlled" trials were all "coincidentally" halted before the agreed-to protocol time had elapsed. This exaggerates the effect of the cut men's post-surgical period of abstinence. (In South Africa, the cut men were told to abstain for 8 weeks and then to be SURE and use condoms, while the intact men got no such counsel). It also increases the effect of HIV not being detectable often until months after infection.
The selection of subjects was not at all "random." The men SOUGHT circumcision, which is to say it had a certain meaning to them. If the meaning was one of purification and transition to adulthood, could it not be that their behavior changed after the amputation?
In fact, African boys who had never had sex were found more likely to ALREADY have AIDS if they had been circumcised.
The cut African men CONTRACTED HIV at a rate SIX TIMES HIGHER than the rate of new infection for African-American men.
In Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania, HIV is markedly MORE prevalent among the circumcised. In non-cutting Japan, AIDS is more rare than in 95%-cut Israel. The US developed three times the AIDS problem Europe has, even while most American men were cut and circ remained rare in Europe. MOST of the half-million American men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.
Circumcision does not prevent AIDS; not in Africa, not in the US.