Comments

"Facts are facts. Randomized double blind studies don't lie. Seems as if some out there are personally afraid of the truth..... There are medical benefits to being nipped and that's the story." Excuse me while I am laughing on the floor..let's look at the so-called RCT in the latest hysteric call for circumcision as a "preventative" for HIV.. In SCIENCE, a (R)andomized (C)ontrolled (T)rial is a trial where all of the factors are CONTROLLED with one,and only one factor (chosen at random) is altered and the results are examined. For the Circumcision/HIV studies, we have the following: None of the factors are CONTROLLED. These factors are examined only based on self-reporting (notoriously unreliable) and then examined STATISTICALLY. The only thing that might be random were those chosen to be circumcised. Not CONTROLLED were: 1. The time needed for healing for those circumcised BEFORE the trial was intitiated 2. Rates of exposure for each group 3. Dry sex: http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/baleta1/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/beksinska1/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/sandala1/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/brown1/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/civic1/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/dallabetta1/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/runganga1/ http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/1999/12/10/drysex/ 4. Anal sex 5. Homosexual sex 6. Genital warts re-occurance: how they were treated, and the final efficacy of that particular treatment. (excision or chemical) http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/cook2/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/vanhowe6/ http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/hooykaas1/ 7. The accuracy of the tests to determine seroconversion--rates of false or negative determinations A. http://www.afrol.com/features/11116 B. http://www.duesberg.com/subject/epvtafrica.html 8. The time needed to manifest all seroconversions 9. Any chance of a follow-up as the test was stopped early and ALL subjects were circumcised. 10 . Equal amount of "safe-sex counseling" for both groups: A. Postoperative follow-up visits were scheduled at 24–48 hours, 5–9 days, and 4–6 weeks. B. All participants in both groups were followed up at 4–6 weeks, and at 6, 12, and 24 months post-enrolment Control is control, "playing with the numbers" is merely an accounting scheme. And all of this involved nothing but statistical analysis. Author bias is a common problem with many studies (and all authors have long been circumcision advocates): http://www.nam.co.uk/en/news/F74B04D2-793E-4B49-B837-061E67C0527F.asp Another shortcoming of the studies is the small sample size Small sample size: With few subjects, the law of small numbers applies with a vengeance. (Roughly, when you're dealing with small numbers, random variations assume disproportionate importance. IE, there might be 3 murders in a small community one year and 14 the next, but it's stupid to say "The murder rate has more than quadrupled!" and blame the difference on policing, penalties, or anything else. Next year there might be 7 or 1.)

"That’s the sort of the thing that medical folks like yours truly have to worry about when doing something like inserting a catheter through the penis into the bladder. When you insert a catheter, you first pull the foreskin down; you better remember to pull the foreskin back up after the catheter goes all the way in. Otherwise, after a while, the foreskin you slid down can choke the end of the penis and cause it to swell (like putting a rubber band around your fingertip)—and you won’t be able to get the foreskin back up later. This is why, in medical school when you are learning to examine the genitals, you’re taught to ask every man whether he is circumcised or not. Some guys may look circumcised when they are not, and vice versa, so it is important to know where their foreskin is normally, before you start moving it around." Tell this specious nonsense to doctors in intact countries and you would be laughed out of the room..American medical ignorance at it's best here. No wonder Americans still circumcise when they believe nonsense that doctors in 1st world countries summarily dismiss.