Boston Globe Article

Bunk. All bunk.

---
JasonDolley
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/JasonDolley/
actor Jason Dolley (boy)

post an exciting new message to JasonDolley:
***@yahoogroups.com

In His Image

2004-12-04 00:16:54 UTC

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
Circumcised men less likely to get AIDS

Condom users even less likely to get AIDS. So protect your children
from AIDS by having them educated. Forget the tribal initiation rites.

-Image

Kenny Thomas

2004-12-04 23:01:13 UTC

Important note: the study was performed in Africa and India. In
research it would be totally inappropriate to apply the results of
those studies to the rest of the world. The findings that come out of
these studies apply ONLY to Africa and India.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
One unpublished household survey in Kenya has shown that uncircumcised
men have an HIV rate that is 11 times greater, while a second study in
India has found uncircumcised men have a seven times higher rate of
infection. Other studies showed that Zambia and Ethiopia had lower
rates of HIV infection in areas of the countries where circumcision
was more common. Researchers have suspected a link between
circumcision and HIV prevention for more than 15 years. In the United
States, studies have shown that high circumcision rates have had a
protective benefit for heterosexual Americans. But most specialists
have not recommended the procedure because they believed that other
factors such as religious and cultural beliefs might explain the link.

Key note: other factors such as religious and cultural beliefs might
explain the link. In other words, it's not the circumcision that's
giving the benifits, it's the culture of the USA that is.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
The recent Kenya data, however, have given new impetus among some AIDS
experts to focus more attention on the issue. The Kenya study was
completed by the Demographic and Health Surveys, a Maryland-based
independent group that conducts detailed surveys around the world.
Leaders in at least two African countries, Swaziland and Zambia, have
said that, while they want more definitive evidence linking
circumcision with preventing HIV, they say the epidemiological studies
have startled them.
"Watch this. There could be some breakthroughs coming out of this,"
Derek von Wissell, director of Swaziland's National Emergency Response
Council on HIV/AIDS, said in a telephone interview from Mbabane, the
capital. "If the evidence comes through, we could really look at this
as a preventive measure. It's almost as effective as a vaccine. The
effect would be massive."

A vaccine? What a blow hole! That is the most rediculous claim I have
ever heard in my life. Yeah, you guys should all "watch this." watch
out for it!

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
World Health Organization officials, however, warn that ongoing
clinical trials need to be completed before deciding whether
circumcision should be recommended as a prevention tool against the
spread of HIV. Those studies, underway in Kenya, Uganda, and South
Africa, will be completed in one to three years.

The WHO is doing a good job in waiting, however, they have no
important weight in the USA for recommendations. The AAP and the AMA
have never made a policy decision based solely on the WHO.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
"The numbers are striking, but we have to make sure that's really the
effect from circumcision," said Kevin R. O'Reilly, a WHO specialist on
the treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS. "We don't know if the
elevenfold increase we're seeing in Kenya is related to circumcision
alone or differences in sex patterns, religious patterns, and other
things."

That's where my money is going. Differences in sex pattersn, religious
patters, and other things...like, being promiscuous maybe?

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
O'Reilly said that even if male circumcision was shown to help prevent
HIV, "the question is, what do you do with that information? . . . The
preference for or against circumcision among different groups is a
fairly strongly-held conviction. It has a lot to do with group
identify. In tribal circumstances, it might be us vs. them -- we
circumcise and they don't."
He also expressed concern that some men who believe circumcision
prevents HIV might abandon other safe-sex precautions. "We have a long
history in HIV/AIDS prevention learning time. . . . There is no magic
bullet."

Yup. Just like some people here, you guys put way too much weight on
the "protection" circumcision offers. It's nothing. The protection is
irrelevant. There is no protection. Sorry. Your better off using
condoms...and you know what? Condoms work probably around 99% of the
time in preventing HIV, doesn't matter if you are circumcised or not.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin of the penis, is one of the
world's oldest and most common surgical procedures. It is part of a
ritual practiced for thousands of years by Jews and Muslims. Many
Christians and people of other faiths also are circumcised, and the
procedure is most often performed on newborn babies boys in the USA.

Wow this newspaper needs a new editor.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
According to a review of scientific research by the US Agency for
International Development, the inner surface of the foreskin absorbs
HIV up to nine times more efficiently than female cervical tissue.

I would be interested to read this research. I'll have to find it.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
Circumcision is already known to reduce a man's risk of penile cancer.
A study of 393 men from a clinic in Tuscon, published last month in
the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases, also found that
circumcision may reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female sexual
partners. That confirmed an earlier five-country study published in
the New England Journal of Medicine.

Irrelevant study. 393 is too small of a sample to mean anything. I go
to a university with a population of about 10,000 and I am taking a
research class. My text book and even my instructor said that you
would probably need to survey around 3,000 people just to get a good
research/survey result in my university. 393 is too small.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
In Africa, the countries with the highest rates of HIV infection are
in the far south, which have low circumcision rates. Countries in West
Africa and the island nation of Madagascar have lower HIV prevalence
and very high male circumcision rates.

Where are they getting the circumcision rate information? I find it
quite funny that I cant even find the USA circumcision rate from any
official government source and we probably have the technology to keep
that information, but somehow they know the circumcision rate of
backwater tribes in African nations? I find that hard to believe. I
think there might be some generalizations going on here.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
For years, most AIDS experts have said that the lower rates were
largely attributable to large Muslim populations, which generally had
more conservative sexual behaviors than Christian communities.

So now the African countries are full of Muslims? Hmmm...interesting.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
Conservative religious beliefs and sexual behavior apparently do not
explain some situations for low HIV prevalence. In Madagascar, where
nearly 100 percent of boys are circumcised by puberty, about 10
percent of the population is Muslim, 45 percent Christian, and 45
percent follow traditional beliefs. The island also has high rates of
sexually transmitted infections, which can increase risk for HIV
transmission. And yet the island's HIV prevalence is estimated at 1.4
percent.

1.4%? What's their population number? They don't give us enough
information. I read in the USA today that some small state (cant
remember it's name) leads the nation in having more prisoners in their
jails this year than they did last year. "Up 11%" it said. Wow...but
what they don't tell you is that last year their jails had 1,265
inmates, this year they have 1,404. Yet they lead the nation in more
prisoners? Funny that when you compare New York state's information to
that, it's irrelevant. Don't put any weight in this information, we
are missing too much to know what any of that junk in the last
paragraph means.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
"It's an intriguing question why HIV prevalence varies so dramatically
across different parts of Africa as well as parts of Asia," Daniel
Halperin, a USAID expert on HIV prevention, said in an interview from
Washington. "The main, although not the only, factor explaining this
appears to be male circumcision."

The main factor huh? I wonder how many other factors they looked at?

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
But Halperin, who has been one of the most passionate supporters for
more research on male circumcision and health, said that USAID would
not recommend mass circumcision campaigns to lower HIV risk. "It
really needs to come from the Africans themselves," he said. "They may
be the ones to implement it on their own or ask for donor assistance.
Maybe that's when things will change."

I wouldn't bet any money on that.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
In Zambia, USAID has just begun funding its first training sessions
for health workers to perform voluntary circumcision surgery. Emmanuel
Oladipo Otolorin, a regional HIV/AIDS adviser for Johns Hopkins
University's international public health institute, said that African
countries should start training health workers now to perform safe
circumcisions, instead of waiting for further data.
"One cannot ignore these observational studies," Otolorin said by
telephone from Lusaka. "Now many men are going to traditional
circumcisers and some are coming out with terrible complications and
infections. So why don't we strengthen sites that are already
providing facilities on a limited scale?"
In September, Otolorin posted a small note outside a clinic in Lusaka
advertising free circumcisions. He said more than 50 men showed up.
Only a few mentioned that they wanted to be circumcised as a
prevention for HIV; most said they believed circumcision would either
improve their hygiene or sexual satisfaction.

Only 50? Doesn't seem like that many. But whats the population of
Lusaka? Why don't they ever say these things? It would be a big deal
if the population was a few hundred, but if it's thousands or
millions, 50 is nothing.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
"But can you imagine if we now go out and say, 'Oh, male circumcision
is associated with a lower risk of HIV?' " Otolorin asked. "All the
young men would be queuing up to have this done. We have to be
cautious about this. We know it is not an absolute protection. But
this is an intervention we cannot ignore."

Uh huh...maybe someone should tell his collegue that? You know? The
one that said it was like a vaccine? I highly doubt there would be
lines either. Maybe for a short time, but I doubt the turnout would
increase too much. But then again that's just my opinion.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/
circumcised_men_less_likely_to_get_aids/

Winding Highway

2004-12-16 23:02:55 UTC

Post by Kenny Thomas
Important note: the study was performed in Africa and India. In
research it would be totally inappropriate to apply the results of
those studies to the rest of the world. The findings that come out of
these studies apply ONLY to Africa and India.

Not necessarily. Lots of research done in one part of the world is generalized
to others. Drug companies conduct some of their drug trials in other
countries, for example.

Anyway, Kenny Thomas is hardly one to preach about this. Not so long ago he
assured us that an informal, unpublished, unreviewed report from the
Philippines by a foreskin enthusiast friend of his could be applied to the
whole "country" of Africa!

When somebody challenged Kennys comparison to the "country" of Africa, Kenny

Post by Kenny Thomas
I am encompassing all of African

countries that circumcise using circumcision >initiation schools and for rites
of passage.

But when Kenny was asked to name these African countries -- he couldnt name

Post by Kenny Thomas
I don't have to know the individual countries to discuss them.
I can discuss those countries that have circumcision initiation schools and
I can compare them to the Philippines. It really is quite easy.
I will also say that I never once discussed specifics about any African
country because I don't know the specifics.

So, when it comes to advancing the foreskin cause, an unscientific sample in
one country can be fairly compared with a variety of practices in countries
that Kenny cannot even name and about which he knows no specifics. Yet, when
it comes to evidence implicating foreskins in the spread of hiv, Kenny suddenly
becomes a methodological purist, demanding the most exacting standards.

How can this be? Well, Kenny always likes to have the last word, so let him

Post by Kenny Thomas
Sure I make the rules. For myself.

Sure I make the rules. For myself.

Post by Kenny Thomas
Sure I make the rules. For myself.

Kenny Thomas

2004-12-23 05:16:06 UTC

Not necessarily. Lots of research done in one part of the world is generalized
to others. Drug companies conduct some of their drug trials in other
countries, for example.

Not the same. Drugs cause chemical reactions in the brain or other
parts of the body. Much different than sexual practices of humans in
different parts of the world.

Post by Winding Highway
Anyway, Kenny Thomas is hardly one to preach about this. Not so long ago he
assured us that an informal, unpublished, unreviewed report from the
Philippines by a foreskin enthusiast friend of his could be applied to the
whole "country" of Africa!

I did?

Post by Winding Highway
When somebody challenged Kennys comparison to the "country" of

Africa, Kenny

Post by Kenny Thomas
I am encompassing all of African

countries that circumcise using circumcision >initiation schools and for rites
of passage.
But when Kenny was asked to name these African countries -- he

couldnt name

Yet, when

Post by Winding Highway
it comes to evidence implicating foreskins in the spread of hiv, Kenny suddenly
becomes a methodological purist, demanding the most exacting

standards.
I demand such standards always. I barely remember the post you are
speaking of...but what I do remember is that I was discussing the
procedures by which the circumcisions are performed. They are
strikingly similar in Africa as in the Philippines.

Post by Winding Highway
How can this be? Well, Kenny always likes to have the last word, so let him

Post by Kenny Thomas
Sure I make the rules. For myself.

Sure I make the rules. For myself.

Post by Kenny Thomas
Sure I make the rules. For myself.

Winding Highway

2004-12-23 13:22:24 UTC

From: "Kenny Thomas"
I barely remember the post you are
speaking of

THATS your excuse??? Look it up, and get back to us.

Winding Highway

2004-12-17 00:00:23 UTC

Post by Kenny Thomas
you guys put way too much weight on
the "protection" circumcision offers. It's nothing. The protection is
irrelevant. There is no protection

Except that most of the studies to date show that uncircumcised males ARE more
susceptible to hiv infection -- or, to put it differently, are less protected.
There is no scienfific basis for your statement, and substantial basis to
discredit it.

I would be interested to read this research. I'll have to find it.

Im glad youre finally interested -- you should be. So, have you found it yet?
Did you even bother to look?

Post by Kenny Thomas
Irrelevant study. 393 is too small of a sample to mean anything. I go
to a university with a population of about 10,000 and I am taking a
research class. My text book and even my instructor said that you
would probably need to survey around 3,000 people just to get a good
research/survey result in my university. 393 is too small.

Rubbish. If your instructor said you need to poll 3,000 people to get a good
survey of 10,000 people he should be fired. If your textbook said that it
should be dropped. But I doubt if the book really does say that -- is this one
of those "facts" that you just make up, or would you care to give the exact
citation, Kenny? A random sample of 300 would be more than adequate, actually.
For gods sake, opinion polls in the US routinely use samples of around 1,000
-1,500 to survey over 200 million adults.

Small samples are common in science. Famous experiments, such as Zimbardos
prison experiment or Aschs conformity experiment, used 50 subjects or less.
Stage 6 tests for new drugs in the US typically involve a handful of people --
and if even two or three of them proceed to die, nobody whines that "the sample
is too small to mean anything". The test is stopped and the drug is pulled.
The WHO has taken emergency action on less than a dozen reported cases of new
diseases like SARS or bird flu.

Post by Kenny Thomas
So now the African countries are full of Muslims? Hmmm...interesting.

Yes Kenny, they have been there for 1,365 years, multiplying all the while.
Its good to see you finally learning something about Africa. Ex Africa semper
aliquid novi, as Pliny observed.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
Halperin, a USAID expert on HIV prevention, said in an interview from
Washington. "The main, although not the only, factor explaining this
appears to be male circumcision."

The main factor huh? I wonder how many other factors they looked at?

Why bother wondering? They will never, ever, ever look at enough other
factors to satisfy you. In ANY scientific finding there is ALWAYS the
possibilty that some unsuspected factor is influencing the result. The tobacco
companies used that argument for half a century to claim there was no "proof"
of the link between smoking and cancer. No "proof" will ever satisfy the
true foreskin enthusiast, and you know it.

Kenny Thomas

2004-12-23 06:06:17 UTC

Post by Kenny Thomas
you guys put way too much weight on
the "protection" circumcision offers. It's nothing. The protection is
irrelevant. There is no protection

Can you give me actual study names? Studies that were conducted here in
the USA? If there is such a strong correlation, why isn't the AMA or
the AAP accepting the results? You would think that organizations that
are designed to protect the health and well being of the population of
the USA would take note of such information? I wonder, does the labia
have these receptors? Hmmm, has anyone ever even bothered to check?

I would be interested to read this research. I'll have to find it.

Im glad youre finally interested -- you should be. So, have you found it yet?
Did you even bother to look?

Yes, I looked. All I found was the abstract, I can't find the full text
of the study. Until I have the ability to review the full text, I
wouldn't care to comment on it too much or place any significant weight
on it at all.

Sure, the name of the book is "Research Methods in Criminal Justice
Second Edition" the page number is 83, the paragraphs are numbers 2 - 4
on that page. The text reads as follows:

"In assessing a research project, we should begin with an evaluation of
the sampling techniques employed. The important questions to ask are:
(a) Is the sample a probability or non-probability sample? (b) Is the
specific type of sampling procedure used (simple random, multistage,
purposive, and so on) appropriate to the hypothesis and the data? and
(c) What is the size of the sample?

The relevance of the third question will become clearer in our
discussion of statistics, but a brief example here will illustrate its
importance. Not long ago, an auto parts manufacturer claimed that taxis
using its products in a large American city had not experienced a
breakdown for '450,000 taxi-tough miles.' Apparently, the company hoped
to convince readers of the ad that their parts last mile after mile
after mile. Unfortunately, the advertisement failed to mention how many
taxis were included in the study. If the number of taxis using these
parts was, for example, 4, the manufacturer's claim would appear to
have some substance, because, on the average, each taxi could have
driven over 100,000 miles on the parts. The reader can estimate the
substance of the claim if the number of taxis sampled was not 4, but
4,000!

The objective of any sampling plan is to obtain a representative sample
of the population involved that is large enough to permit data analysis
and can be studied within the researcher's time and budgetary limits.
While small samples can be used, they do not permit very sophisticated
analysis because there are too few cases to sort into the various
categories of our variables. As a rule of thumb, the sample size should
not be less than 30, and most reasearchers would prefer a sample size
nearer 100. For samples drawn from extremely large populations, a
sample size of up to 1,500 may be desireable.* With probability
sampling there are ways to determine the size of the sample required to
meet specified limits of sampling error, and these techniques are
discussed in detail in most statistics texts.** We shall consider some
elementary principles of determining sample size in the chapter on
inferential statistics.

* Edwin S. Johnson, Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal
Justice (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1981), p. 156.
** Blalock, Social Statistics, for example."

If you would like to buy the book go to
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0534534376/qid=1103780933/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-7157667-6403222?v=glance&s=books

Post by Winding Highway
Small samples are common in science. Famous experiments, such as Zimbardos
prison experiment or Aschs conformity experiment, used 50 subjects or less.
Stage 6 tests for new drugs in the US typically involve a handful of people --
and if even two or three of them proceed to die, nobody whines that "the sample
is too small to mean anything". The test is stopped and the drug is pulled.
The WHO has taken emergency action on less than a dozen reported cases of new
diseases like SARS or bird flu.

Sure they are. However, the testing of drugs is much different than the
sexual habits of humans which is a large factor in HIV transmission, is
it not? There is a difference between pharmacological science and
behavioural science.

Post by Kenny Thomas
So now the African countries are full of Muslims?

Hmmm...interesting.

Post by Winding Highway
Yes Kenny, they have been there for 1,365 years, multiplying all the while.
Its good to see you finally learning something about Africa. Ex Africa semper
aliquid novi, as Pliny observed.

I don't see how religion is relevant anyway?

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
Halperin, a USAID expert on HIV prevention, said in an interview from
Washington. "The main, although not the only, factor explaining this
appears to be male circumcision."

The main factor huh? I wonder how many other factors they looked at?

The tobacco

Post by Winding Highway
companies used that argument for half a century to claim there was no "proof"
of the link between smoking and cancer. No "proof" will ever satisfy the
true foreskin enthusiast, and you know it.

Sure it will. You see, there's a difference between me and others. I
don't care if they prove that the foreskin is more susceptable to HIV
or not. To me, that's irrelevant. You see, I think there are better
ways to prevent HIV than circumcision even if it does reduce it 7 fold
or whatever. If they prove it, and they account for sexual behaviour
and "at risk" individuals than I will be happy and say, "yes, there is
a correlation, and it's strong." But to be honest, even if there was a
correlation, it would not stop my opposition to it. You see, denying
someone their human right to chose what to do to their body is more
important to me, as it should be to everyone. Circumcision of infants
and/or minors of any kind is a crime against humanity and should be
stopped. I will not rest until it is done.

Winding Highway

2004-12-23 13:38:51 UTC

From: "Kenny Thomas"
Sure, the name of the book is "Research Methods in Criminal Justice
Second Edition" the page number is 83, the paragraphs are numbers 2 - 4

The text you cited does NOT say that you would need to poll 3,000 people to get
a good survey of 10,000. Quite the contrary. In fact it says that for very
large populations a sample of 1,500 is adequate -- which is the point I made in
my own post, when I said national opinion polls typically rely on 2,000 people
or less.

I find it quite interesting not only that you misinterpreted the text when you
first read it, but that you did so a second time when challenged on it, and
even cited the text to support your silly notion when in fact the text gives it
no support at all. Given your long history here of supplying misinformation
to the group, I am seriously wondering now if you have a problem of dyslexia
or other deficit in reading comprehension. You really should investigate this
because if you continue to believe, for example, that 3,000 people must be used
to get a good survey of 10,000, you will naturally reject all kinds of valid
research -- not least, the national opinion polls of Gallup and other
organizations which typically use 1,100 -1,500 subjects to survey 200,000,000
adults, with remarkable accuracy.

I don't see how religion is relevant anyway?

You dont??? Then why have you been calling for religion to be taken into
account as a variable in hiv-foreskin research? Lordy, you are a confused one!

Circumcision of infants
and/or minors of any kind is a crime against humanity and should be
stopped.

Now THAT is a position which reasonable people can take. You would do better
to stick to that argument than dabble in methodological issues that are way
over your head.

Kenny Thomas

2004-12-24 01:57:03 UTC

From: "Kenny Thomas"
Sure, the name of the book is "Research Methods in Criminal Justice
Second Edition" the page number is 83, the paragraphs are numbers 2 - 4

No, the text says that the equation used to determine sample size is in
most statistical texts. If you use the equation, a population size of
1,500 for the nation is not enough for a standard +/- 2 error.

Post by Winding Highway
I find it quite interesting not only that you misinterpreted the text when you
first read it, but that you did so a second time when challenged on it, and
even cited the text to support your silly notion when in fact the text gives it
no support at all. Given your long history here of supplying

misinformation

Post by Winding Highway
to the group, I am seriously wondering now if you have a problem of dyslexia
or other deficit in reading comprehension. You really should

investigate this

Post by Winding Highway
because if you continue to believe, for example, that 3,000 people must be used
to get a good survey of 10,000, you will naturally reject all kinds of valid
research -- not least, the national opinion polls of Gallup and other
organizations which typically use 1,100 -1,500 subjects to survey 200,000,000
adults, with remarkable accuracy.

The text was not misinterpreted. It stated, and I quote: "With
probability sampling there are ways to determine the size of sample
required to meet specified limits of sampling error, and these
techniques are discussed in detail in most statistical texts."

You can view a sample size calculator here:
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm or by searching Google with the
text "sample size equations." Using the calculator however, if we have
a population of 10,000 people and we want a confidence level of 95% and
a standard margain of error (usually +/- 2) we would NEED to survey
1936 individuals. So, I suppose it's about 1,000 less than my
instructor said, and a little more than the book said, it's still
higher than most of the studies you and others cite. Let's see...if you
have a population size of 10,000 and you survey 1,500 people, and the
normal 50% you would get a margain of error of 2.33, which is close to
the standard margain of error of 2, but still off.

Also, Gallup uses a specialized selection process so that they can
survey individuals accurately. They do not use "random selection" in
their surveys. Chances are most people will not be called by Gallup and
asked to give their opinion. This I do know for a fact, we read about
Gallup specifically in a handout we were given around election time and
how Gallup can only survey 300 or so people and still get such a low
margain of error. It's because the people they survey are carefully
selected. The type of study you are discussing (in Africa) is
completely random.

I don't see how religion is relevant anyway?

You dont??? Then why have you been calling for religion to be taken into
account as a variable in hiv-foreskin research? Lordy, you are a confused one!

Nah, not confused, I just forgot why religion was brought up...unlike
some people I don't spend hours on hours reading the newsgroups. It
certainly isn't the highlight of my day, it's just something to do to
mess with people :)

And yes, I think religion should be taken into account when studying
HIV and circumcision research. But not because one religion circumcises
more than others, but what the religion teaches about sex, and
homosexuality etc...

Circumcision of infants
and/or minors of any kind is a crime against humanity and should be
stopped.

Now THAT is a position which reasonable people can take. You would do better
to stick to that argument than dabble in methodological issues that are way
over your head.

Nah not over my head. I may have a hard time explaining things in a
newsgroup setting, and may get confused by the way Google puts the
newsgroup postings and may get lost with replying to many different
people, but I got an A in my research class (and kept the book because
it is interesting), I know a little about research and statistics,
granted I don't know everything, but I try my best to learn all that I
can.

Administrator

2004-12-09 22:52:05 UTC

Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases???
Is that found in the adult section of your favorite little emporium
catering to pervs of your type?

O'Reilly hit the nail on the head. In parts of Africa it is still
believed that AIDS can be cured by having intercourse with an infant
female virgin.

None of the articles you referred to were peer reviewed and the studies
quoted were too small to be of any value...and also failed to mention
that the U.S., the most circumcised industrial nation in the world, for
two decades had the highest HIV infection rate on the planet.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
==========================================
Circumcised men less likely to get AIDS
By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | November 16, 2004
JOHANNESBURG -- Men who are circumcised have a dramatically lower rate
of HIV infection than those who are not, according to new studies in
Africa and India, suggesting that the ancient surgical procedure may
play a role in helping prevent the spread of the deadly virus.
One unpublished household survey in Kenya has shown that uncircumcised
men have an HIV rate that is 11 times greater, while a second study in
India has found uncircumcised men have a seven times higher rate of
infection. Other studies showed that Zambia and Ethiopia had lower
rates of HIV infection in areas of the countries where circumcision
was more common. Researchers have suspected a link between
circumcision and HIV prevention for more than 15 years. In the United
States, studies have shown that high circumcision rates have had a
protective benefit for heterosexual Americans. But most specialists
have not recommended the procedure because they believed that other
factors such as religious and cultural beliefs might explain the link.
The recent Kenya data, however, have given new impetus among some AIDS
experts to focus more attention on the issue. The Kenya study was
completed by the Demographic and Health Surveys, a Maryland-based
independent group that conducts detailed surveys around the world.
Leaders in at least two African countries, Swaziland and Zambia, have
said that, while they want more definitive evidence linking
circumcision with preventing HIV, they say the epidemiological studies
have startled them.
"Watch this. There could be some breakthroughs coming out of this,"
Derek von Wissell, director of Swaziland's National Emergency Response
Council on HIV/AIDS, said in a telephone interview from Mbabane, the
capital. "If the evidence comes through, we could really look at this
as a preventive measure. It's almost as effective as a vaccine. The
effect would be massive."
World Health Organization officials, however, warn that ongoing
clinical trials need to be completed before deciding whether
circumcision should be recommended as a prevention tool against the
spread of HIV. Those studies, underway in Kenya, Uganda, and South
Africa, will be completed in one to three years.
"The numbers are striking, but we have to make sure that's really the
effect from circumcision," said Kevin R. O'Reilly, a WHO specialist on
the treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS. "We don't know if the
elevenfold increase we're seeing in Kenya is related to circumcision
alone or differences in sex patterns, religious patterns, and other
things."
O'Reilly said that even if male circumcision was shown to help prevent
HIV, "the question is, what do you do with that information? . . . The
preference for or against circumcision among different groups is a
fairly strongly-held conviction. It has a lot to do with group
identify. In tribal circumstances, it might be us vs. them -- we
circumcise and they don't."
He also expressed concern that some men who believe circumcision
prevents HIV might abandon other safe-sex precautions. "We have a long
history in HIV/AIDS prevention learning time. . . . There is no magic
bullet."
Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin of the penis, is one of the
world's oldest and most common surgical procedures. It is part of a
ritual practiced for thousands of years by Jews and Muslims. Many
Christians and people of other faiths also are circumcised, and the
procedure is most often performed on newborn babies boys in the USA.
According to a review of scientific research by the US Agency for
International Development, the inner surface of the foreskin absorbs
HIV up to nine times more efficiently than female cervical tissue.
Circumcision is already known to reduce a man's risk of penile cancer.
A study of 393 men from a clinic in Tuscon, published last month in
the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases, also found that
circumcision may reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female sexual
partners. That confirmed an earlier five-country study published in
the New England Journal of Medicine.
In Africa, the countries with the highest rates of HIV infection are
in the far south, which have low circumcision rates. Countries in West
Africa and the island nation of Madagascar have lower HIV prevalence
and very high male circumcision rates.
For years, most AIDS experts have said that the lower rates were
largely attributable to large Muslim populations, which generally had
more conservative sexual behaviors than Christian communities.
Conservative religious beliefs and sexual behavior apparently do not
explain some situations for low HIV prevalence. In Madagascar, where
nearly 100 percent of boys are circumcised by puberty, about 10
percent of the population is Muslim, 45 percent Christian, and 45
percent follow traditional beliefs. The island also has high rates of
sexually transmitted infections, which can increase risk for HIV
transmission. And yet the island's HIV prevalence is estimated at 1.4
percent.
"It's an intriguing question why HIV prevalence varies so dramatically
across different parts of Africa as well as parts of Asia," Daniel
Halperin, a USAID expert on HIV prevention, said in an interview from
Washington. "The main, although not the only, factor explaining this
appears to be male circumcision."
But Halperin, who has been one of the most passionate supporters for
more research on male circumcision and health, said that USAID would
not recommend mass circumcision campaigns to lower HIV risk. "It
really needs to come from the Africans themselves," he said. "They may
be the ones to implement it on their own or ask for donor assistance.
Maybe that's when things will change."
In Zambia, USAID has just begun funding its first training sessions
for health workers to perform voluntary circumcision surgery. Emmanuel
Oladipo Otolorin, a regional HIV/AIDS adviser for Johns Hopkins
University's international public health institute, said that African
countries should start training health workers now to perform safe
circumcisions, instead of waiting for further data.
"One cannot ignore these observational studies," Otolorin said by
telephone from Lusaka. "Now many men are going to traditional
circumcisers and some are coming out with terrible complications and
infections. So why don't we strengthen sites that are already
providing facilities on a limited scale?"
In September, Otolorin posted a small note outside a clinic in Lusaka
advertising free circumcisions. He said more than 50 men showed up.
Only a few mentioned that they wanted to be circumcised as a
prevention for HIV; most said they believed circumcision would either
improve their hygiene or sexual satisfaction.
"But can you imagine if we now go out and say, 'Oh, male circumcision
is associated with a lower risk of HIV?' " Otolorin asked. "All the
young men would be queuing up to have this done. We have to be
cautious about this. We know it is not an absolute protection. But
this is an intervention we cannot ignore."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/
circumcised_men_less_likely_to_get_aids/
==========================================
Circumcised men less likely to get AIDS
By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | November 16, 2004
JOHANNESBURG -- Men who are circumcised have a dramatically lower rate
of HIV infection than those who are not, according to new studies in
Africa and India, suggesting that the ancient surgical procedure may
play a role in helping prevent the spread of the deadly virus.
One unpublished household survey in Kenya has shown that uncircumcised
men have an HIV rate that is 11 times greater, while a second study in
India has found uncircumcised men have a seven times higher rate of
infection. Other studies showed that Zambia and Ethiopia had lower
rates of HIV infection in areas of the countries where circumcision
was more common. Researchers have suspected a link between
circumcision and HIV prevention for more than 15 years. In the United
States, studies have shown that high circumcision rates have had a
protective benefit for heterosexual Americans. But most specialists
have not recommended the procedure because they believed that other
factors such as religious and cultural beliefs might explain the link.
The recent Kenya data, however, have given new impetus among some AIDS
experts to focus more attention on the issue. The Kenya study was
completed by the Demographic and Health Surveys, a Maryland-based
independent group that conducts detailed surveys around the world.
Leaders in at least two African countries, Swaziland and Zambia, have
said that, while they want more definitive evidence linking
circumcision with preventing HIV, they say the epidemiological studies
have startled them.
"Watch this. There could be some breakthroughs coming out of this,"
Derek von Wissell, director of Swaziland's National Emergency Response
Council on HIV/AIDS, said in a telephone interview from Mbabane, the
capital. "If the evidence comes through, we could really look at this
as a preventive measure. It's almost as effective as a vaccine. The
effect would be massive."
World Health Organization officials, however, warn that ongoing
clinical trials need to be completed before deciding whether
circumcision should be recommended as a prevention tool against the
spread of HIV. Those studies, underway in Kenya, Uganda, and South
Africa, will be completed in one to three years.
"The numbers are striking, but we have to make sure that's really the
effect from circumcision," said Kevin R. O'Reilly, a WHO specialist on
the treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS. "We don't know if the
elevenfold increase we're seeing in Kenya is related to circumcision
alone or differences in sex patterns, religious patterns, and other
things."
O'Reilly said that even if male circumcision was shown to help prevent
HIV, "the question is, what do you do with that information? . . . The
preference for or against circumcision among different groups is a
fairly strongly-held conviction. It has a lot to do with group
identify. In tribal circumstances, it might be us vs. them -- we
circumcise and they don't."
He also expressed concern that some men who believe circumcision
prevents HIV might abandon other safe-sex precautions. "We have a long
history in HIV/AIDS prevention learning time. . . . There is no magic
bullet."
Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin of the penis, is one of the
world's oldest and most common surgical procedures. It is part of a
ritual practiced for thousands of years by Jews and Muslims. Many
Christians and people of other faiths also are circumcised, and the
procedure is most often performed on newborn babies boys in the USA.
According to a review of scientific research by the US Agency for
International Development, the inner surface of the foreskin absorbs
HIV up to nine times more efficiently than female cervical tissue.
Circumcision is already known to reduce a man's risk of penile cancer.
A study of 393 men from a clinic in Tuscon, published last month in
the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases, also found that
circumcision may reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female sexual
partners. That confirmed an earlier five-country study published in
the New England Journal of Medicine.
In Africa, the countries with the highest rates of HIV infection are
in the far south, which have low circumcision rates. Countries in West
Africa and the island nation of Madagascar have lower HIV prevalence
and very high male circumcision rates.
For years, most AIDS experts have said that the lower rates were
largely attributable to large Muslim populations, which generally had
more conservative sexual behaviors than Christian communities.
Conservative religious beliefs and sexual behavior apparently do not
explain some situations for low HIV prevalence. In Madagascar, where
nearly 100 percent of boys are circumcised by puberty, about 10
percent of the population is Muslim, 45 percent Christian, and 45
percent follow traditional beliefs. The island also has high rates of
sexually transmitted infections, which can increase risk for HIV
transmission. And yet the island's HIV prevalence is estimated at 1.4
percent.
"It's an intriguing question why HIV prevalence varies so dramatically
across different parts of Africa as well as parts of Asia," Daniel
Halperin, a USAID expert on HIV prevention, said in an interview from
Washington. "The main, although not the only, factor explaining this
appears to be male circumcision."
But Halperin, who has been one of the most passionate supporters for
more research on male circumcision and health, said that USAID would
not recommend mass circumcision campaigns to lower HIV risk. "It
really needs to come from the Africans themselves," he said. "They may
be the ones to implement it on their own or ask for donor assistance.
Maybe that's when things will change."
In Zambia, USAID has just begun funding its first training sessions
for health workers to perform voluntary circumcision surgery. Emmanuel
Oladipo Otolorin, a regional HIV/AIDS adviser for Johns Hopkins
University's international public health institute, said that African
countries should start training health workers now to perform safe
circumcisions, instead of waiting for further data.
"One cannot ignore these observational studies," Otolorin said by
telephone from Lusaka. "Now many men are going to traditional
circumcisers and some are coming out with terrible complications and
infections. So why don't we strengthen sites that are already
providing facilities on a limited scale?"
In September, Otolorin posted a small note outside a clinic in Lusaka
advertising free circumcisions. He said more than 50 men showed up.
Only a few mentioned that they wanted to be circumcised as a
prevention for HIV; most said they believed circumcision would either
improve their hygiene or sexual satisfaction.
"But can you imagine if we now go out and say, 'Oh, male circumcision
is associated with a lower risk of HIV?' " Otolorin asked. "All the
young men would be queuing up to have this done. We have to be
cautious about this. We know it is not an absolute protection. But
this is an intervention we cannot ignore."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/
circumcised_men_less_likely_to_get_aids/

Winding Highway

2004-12-09 23:05:36 UTC

Post by Administrator
None of the articles you referred to were peer reviewed

You dont know that because full citations were not provided in the newspaper
article, so you dont even know what they were. Your bias is showing.

Post by Administrator
and the studies
quoted were too small to be of any value

You dont know that either, because you dont know the original articles. Your
bias is showing.

Post by Administrator
U.S., the most circumcised industrial nation in the world, for
two decades had the highest HIV infection rate on the planet.

You dont know that because there were no usable statistics from central and
southern africa in the early days of the epidemic. Your bias is showing.

To date, the epidemic in the US remains localized in specific groups --
primarily gay males and the disproportionately uncircumcised black and hispanic
minorities. The epidemic has made minimal inroads into the overwhelmingly
circumcised white heterosexual majority of the population.

If you are really interested in this issue, why not actually consult the
substantial and growing number of peer-reviewed journal articles that suggest a
strong epidemiological link between foreskins and susceptibility to HIV
infection? Or are you too biased to look at the actual evidence?

a***@alltel.net

2004-12-10 01:30:02 UTC

Post by Administrator
None of the articles you referred to were peer reviewed

You dont know that because full citations were not provided in the newspaper
article, so you dont even know what they were. Your bias is showing.

Full citations are available however. You don't have to use the Boston
Globe as your sole source of information. You can read the article
online at http://www.stdjournal.com/pt/re/std/home.htm

Post by Administrator
and the studies
quoted were too small to be of any value

You dont know that either, because you dont know the original

articles. Your

Post by Winding Highway
bias is showing.

Again, they are available elsewhere. A good investigator and researcher
never uses just one source.

Post by Administrator
U.S., the most circumcised industrial nation in the world, for
two decades had the highest HIV infection rate on the planet.

You dont know that because there were no usable statistics from central and
southern africa in the early days of the epidemic. Your bias is showing.

How do you know they don't exist and that you just haven't found them?

Post by Winding Highway
To date, the epidemic in the US remains localized in specific groups --

That's bull and you know it.

Post by Winding Highway
primarily gay males and the disproportionately uncircumcised black and hispanic
minorities. The epidemic has made minimal inroads into the

overwhelmingly

Post by Winding Highway
circumcised white heterosexual majority of the population.

I'd like to know what your source for such a claim is?

Post by Winding Highway
If you are really interested in this issue, why not actually consult the
substantial and growing number of peer-reviewed journal articles that suggest a
strong epidemiological link between foreskins and susceptibility to HIV
infection? Or are you too biased to look at the actual evidence?

Winding, there is a difference between "evidence" that is fact, and
evidence that is implied. The FACT of the matter is, NO ONE is saying
that circumcision reduces the chance of getting HIV FOR SURE. As of
right now they are only saying "MAYBE" and when someone says maybe, it
is not an absolute fact. Now, unless you can show me and everyone else
a study that has been tested and re-tested that PROVES circumcision
reduces the chance of getting HIV, your point is moot.

Winding Highway

2004-12-10 02:15:46 UTC

Post by Winding Highway
You dont know that because there were no usable statistics from

central and

Post by Winding Highway
southern africa in the early days of the epidemic.

How do you know they don't exist and that you just haven't found them?

Because those countries lacked the health infrastructure to collect such data.
In fact the mostly didnt realise they had an aids epidemic as such until
western researchers went there in the 1980s and investigated what had long been
known as "slim disease" by the locals, and found it was aids.

Post by Winding Highway
The epidemic has made minimal inroads into the
overwhelmingly

Post by Winding Highway
circumcised white heterosexual majority of the population.

I'd like to know what your source for such a claim is?

We have been through this before, and both I and Moon have given you plenty of
data -- which you apparently didnt understand last time, so Im not shoveling it
at you again. If youre interested, go check the older threads on the topic.

Post by Winding Highway
The FACT of the matter is, NO ONE is saying
that circumcision reduces the chance of getting HIV FOR SURE

This is absolutely correct. Ive never heard anybody make that claim.

However, many anti circers here, including you, have declared the opposite with
utter certainty: that there is NO relationship between forekins and
susceptibity to hiv infection!

Now, that is a totally unjustifiable claim, particularly given the weight of
the evidence so far. Indeed, it is the mark of a closed minded, irresponsible
fanaticism. Anybody with a shred of human decency would be concerned to pursue
the truth about this issue, rather than relentlessly pooh-pooh findings which
might point the way to saving millions of people from disease and death.

Post by Winding Highway
Now, unless you can show me and everyone else
a study that has been tested and re-tested that PROVES circumcision
reduces the chance of getting HIV, your point is moot.

Kenny, there is no possible study that would convince you. You and your ilk
would find fault with any study that showed a link between foreskins and HIV..
No matter what the science showed, you would whine about unknowable
"confounding factors", or sampling problems, or investigator bias, or
extrapolation issues, or whatever other gripe you could come up with.. There
is, quite literally, no conceivable scientific study that would not cause some
objection from you (unless it found that foreskins had no role in HIV, in
which case you would embrace it wholeheartedly).

a***@alltel.net

2004-12-10 18:43:23 UTC

Post by Winding Highway
You dont know that because there were no usable statistics from

central and

Post by Winding Highway
southern africa in the early days of the epidemic.

How do you know they don't exist and that you just haven't found them?

Whose to say that those reasearchers didn't keep statistics? If they
were truely "researchers" they would have.

Post by Winding Highway
The epidemic has made minimal inroads into the
overwhelmingly

Post by Winding Highway
circumcised white heterosexual majority of the population.

I'd like to know what your source for such a claim is?

I do not recall any information you or anyone else gave me. The truth
remains that yes, more african americans and homosexual men have the
disease...however, their minority status has nothing to do with it. If
anything it just proves (to some degree) that it is not the presence or
lack of the foreskin, but the sexual and social practices these people
engage in. You can't deny that those are factors.

Post by Winding Highway
The FACT of the matter is, NO ONE is saying
that circumcision reduces the chance of getting HIV FOR SURE

I never made any absolute claim. I stated, correctly by the way, that
there is no relationship between HIV and foreskin. As of now that is
the truth. Nothing has been proven otherwise. If it is proven, I will
accept it, but I will never accept circumcision as a "good idea" to
help prevent or even reduce the chance of spreading HIV. Will never
happen.

Post by Winding Highway
Now, that is a totally unjustifiable claim, particularly given the weight of
the evidence so far. Indeed, it is the mark of a closed minded, irresponsible
fanaticism. Anybody with a shred of human decency would be concerned to pursue
the truth about this issue, rather than relentlessly pooh-pooh

findings which

Post by Winding Highway
might point the way to saving millions of people from disease and death.

Millions? Tell me Winding...do you honestly believe that if the entire
world was circumcised at birth, that HIV infections would fall by the
millions? If you do, I say you are naieve. Circumcised men can, and do,
get HIV. There are NO statistics in the United States that correlate
HIV with circumcision status. None. Studies may be done, but the truth
remains that as of now, that information is NOT collected when someone
is diagnosed with HIV.

Post by Winding Highway
Now, unless you can show me and everyone else
a study that has been tested and re-tested that PROVES circumcision
reduces the chance of getting HIV, your point is moot.

Kenny, there is no possible study that would convince you. You and your ilk
would find fault with any study that showed a link between foreskins and HIV..

Not true. There could be studies out there that I just haven't seen or
read. And it is not a bad thing to have a skeptical mind.

Post by Winding Highway
No matter what the science showed, you would whine about unknowable
"confounding factors", or sampling problems, or investigator bias, or
extrapolation issues, or whatever other gripe you could come up with.. There
is, quite literally, no conceivable scientific study that would not cause some
objection from you (unless it found that foreskins had no role in HIV, in
which case you would embrace it wholeheartedly).

Not true. I have denounced studies publicly that support my side of the
argument because of small sample sizes. Listen to me, the truth of the
matter is that many many studies are flawed out there. You HAVE to be
skeptical. If I accepted everything that came down the wire I would
totally lose it! You have to be skeptical, when a report comes out,
find out who did the studies, check their background, if they are
doctors that perform circumcisions, guess what, they are PROBABLY
biased. If they are done by people who have no weight in the subject
one way or the other, its more reliable. I would never "embrace
wholeheartedly" any study without first tearing it apart and looking at
all the pieces. And believe me, if I see a problem, I point it out, I
don't just say "the sample size is too small" I say it's too small and
explain why.

One thing that you CANNOT deny though, is that unless this study that
is being done in Africa accounts for all differences in sexual
practices...it's useless...that I will say right now. If they do
account for all of that...then hey! You might have a good study...but
you can't defend the study, and I can't attack it...it's not even done.
So until it's done, I think its an absolute waste of time to even argue
about it because there's nothing to argue about.

Jake Waskett

2004-12-11 22:30:57 UTC

Post by a***@alltel.net
I do not recall any information you or anyone else gave me. The truth
remains that yes, more african americans and homosexual men have the
disease...however, their minority status has nothing to do with it. If
anything it just proves (to some degree) that it is not the presence or
lack of the foreskin, but the sexual and social practices these people
engage in. You can't deny that those are factors.

Kenny, you don't seem to be thinking clearly. Social and particularly sexual
factors are of course risk factors, but this fact says nothing about the
foreskin.

Post by a***@alltel.net
I never made any absolute claim. I stated, correctly by the way, that
there is no relationship between HIV and foreskin. As of now that is
the truth. Nothing has been proven otherwise. If it is proven, I will
accept it, but I will never accept circumcision as a "good idea" to
help prevent or even reduce the chance of spreading HIV. Will never
happen.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If you were to say that
there is no *absolutely proven* relationship between HIV and the foreskin,
you might be on firmer ground. The evidence is strong but not yet
conclusive.

Post by a***@alltel.net
Millions? Tell me Winding...do you honestly believe that if the entire
world was circumcised at birth, that HIV infections would fall by the
millions? If you do, I say you are naieve. Circumcised men can, and do,
get HIV. There are NO statistics in the United States that correlate
HIV with circumcision status. None.

Incorrect. There is at least one. See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7974070

"Eighteen cross-sectional studies from the Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Rwanda,
Uganda, ***US***, and Zambia reported a significant association between the
presence of the foreskin and risk for HIV infection (e.g., odds ratio =
2.4; p = .05 among male sexually transmitted disease [STD] patients in
Zambia)."

I will try to find the relevant paper(s).

a***@alltel.net

2004-12-12 01:11:12 UTC

presence or

Post by a***@alltel.net
lack of the foreskin, but the sexual and social practices these people
engage in. You can't deny that those are factors.

Kenny, you don't seem to be thinking clearly. Social and particularly sexual
factors are of course risk factors, but this fact says nothing about the
foreskin.

Exactly. The foreskin is the least common denominator. IV drug usage,
presence of other STDs, sexual behaviours, SEC, geographical location,
presence or lack of medical care, education levels, and religious
practices are much more important factors in determining the spread of
HIV. The foreskin, if you must put it on the list, would be at the very
bottom.

Correct. As I stated "I never made any absolute claim." Simply because
the evidence does not exist now does not mean it will not in the
future. So sure, I will say that there is no proven relationship
between HIV and the foreskin. That would be a correct statement. Strong
evidence that is not conclusive is not good enough for me, and it
shouldn't be for you either.

correlate

Post by a***@alltel.net
HIV with circumcision status. None.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7974070

Post by Jake Waskett
"Eighteen cross-sectional studies from the Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Rwanda,
Uganda, ***US***, and Zambia reported a significant association between the
presence of the foreskin and risk for HIV infection (e.g., odds ratio =
2.4; p = .05 among male sexually transmitted disease [STD] patients in
Zambia)."
I will try to find the relevant paper(s).

I viewed this link you posted. This "study" is what is called
"secondary analysis." There really was no study performed just an
analysation of the information that was already known. In addition, the
link you gave states:

"Potential sources of error in the studies were sexual behavior related
to religious practice or ethnicity, misclassification of circumcision
status where it cannot be directly observed, and STDs. These findings
suggest that, since current measures to reduce HIV transmission are not
sufficiently effective, it may useful, at least in the short term, to
introduce or expand the practice of male circumcision."

It is important to note that there are errors in the information
analysed...Secondary analysis is not a great research method in the
medical field anyway, but just for the sake of arguendo we will use it.
The studies were all different...the ones analysed measured different
things, some included heterosexuals, some didn't. None of them seemed
to account for sexual behaviour for religious reasons and none of them
took into account ethnicity differences and the behaviours that are
there as well. If the studies analysed DID take into account that
information...well...they didn't say so in the abstract. I would love
to read the full text. My university has full access to medical
journals online, I will take a peak and if I find it I will repost it
here for all to see along with my analysis...but right now...I have
other things to do...

a***@alltel.net

2004-12-12 01:12:38 UTC

This might also be of interest:
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU22.html

Briar Rabbit

2004-12-12 15:47:19 UTC

Post by a***@alltel.net
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU22.html

I suppose this also applies when Van Howe does it?

Kenny Thomas

2004-12-12 20:26:36 UTC

Post by Briar Rabbit

Post by a***@alltel.net
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU22.html

I suppose this also applies when Van Howe does it?

It applies to ALL secondary analysis, regardless of the researcher. So
yes, whoever Van Howe is, it does apply.

Briar Rabbit

2004-12-12 15:45:54 UTC

Kenny, you don't seem to be thinking clearly. Social and particularly sexual
factors are of course risk factors, but this fact says nothing about the
foreskin.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7974070
"Eighteen cross-sectional studies from the Cote d'Ivoire, Kenya, Rwanda,
Uganda, ***US***, and Zambia reported a significant association between the
presence of the foreskin and risk for HIV infection (e.g., odds ratio =
2.4; p = .05 among male sexually transmitted disease [STD] patients in
Zambia)."
I will try to find the relevant paper(s).

Jake, when ever a skin freak is adamant about anything then you should
be sure that it is just another lie. They just can't help themselves.

The Fischl study: "Seroprevalence and risk factors associated with the
heterosexual transmission of HIV in a sexually active non-drug abusing
population." covers heterosexual transmission.
http://www.aegis.com/aidsline/1992/dec/m92c3474.html

Then we have some about homosexual transmission:

Risk Factors for HIV Seroconversion in a Contemporary Cohort of High
Risk Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)
http://www.scharp.org/ceg/science/buchbinder_2.html

The association between circumcision status and human immunodeficiency
virus infection among homosexual men.
http://www.aegis.org/aidsline/1994/mar/m9430876.html

The association between circumcision status and HIV infection among
homosexual men.
http://www.aegis.org/aidsline/1992/dec/m92c3539.html

As you can see Jake, the are pathological liars. Pathetic really isn't it.

Jake Waskett

2004-12-16 20:53:20 UTC

Post by Briar Rabbit
As you can see Jake, the are pathological liars. Pathetic really isn't it.

More sad than pathetic, and I mean that sincerely.

Ignorance isn't always bad. An honest, ignorant person can be educated. The
real poison lies in an ignorant person who is dishonest, and who believes
that he is not ignorant.

A dishonest fool cannot be reasoned with. He dispenses misinformation
freely, as can be seen with our Kenny, or with a recent poster to the
"againstcirc" mailing list, who claimed with certainty that performing
circumcisions in Sweden carries a 4-year prison sentence. In fact, it does
not, though Sweden has passed a law requiring certain safety measures.

Eager to believe their fellow fools, the greatest problems occur when
dishonest fools congregate. I wonder how frequently we'll see the Swedish
myth now...

Jake.

Maseycat

2004-12-12 00:45:42 UTC

Post by a***@alltel.net
So until it's done, I think its an absolute waste of time to even argue
about it because there's nothing to argue about.

I believe circumcision may interfere with HIV transmission.

And I agree it's a waste of time to argue about it, at least in terms
of RIC in the USA.

Because, if the HIV issue and other issues are sufficient to convince
only a tiny fraction of men to elect circumcision for themselves, why
suppose it's okay to circumcise upwards of 65% of children born in the
USA and take away their choice forever?

How would Jake feel if society had somehow prevented him from deciding
if his penis would be whole or circumcised? He speaks out against the
very freedom of choice he exercised for himself. Hypocrite.

Maseycat

2004-12-29 23:06:45 UTC

Maseycat wrote:

Jake speaks out against the right of males to decide for themselves to
be circumcised or not. It's okay to do it to them at birth he says.
But he sure was glad to exercise this right for himself.

Post by Maseycat
How would Jake feel if society had somehow prevented him from

deciding

Post by Maseycat
if his penis would be whole or circumcised? He speaks out against the
very freedom of choice he exercised for himself. Hypocrite.

j***@intactivist.org

2004-12-30 15:08:07 UTC

That's because Jake doesn't think an infant boy has a right to have the
normal body parts he was born with, but I guess he thinks an adult
somehow does have that right. He has compared a boy's inherent right to
not have normal body parts unnecessarily removed to a piece of
granite's right to not be chiselled.

"A body is just a spectacularly well-organised heap of chemicals. You
might as well say the right not to be chiselled is inherent in
granite."

That's my favorite Jake quote of all times!

smt

Post by Maseycat
Jake speaks out against the right of males to decide for themselves to
be circumcised or not. It's okay to do it to them at birth he says.
But he sure was glad to exercise this right for himself.

Post by Maseycat
How would Jake feel if society had somehow prevented him from

deciding

Post by Maseycat
if his penis would be whole or circumcised? He speaks out against

the

Post by Maseycat
very freedom of choice he exercised for himself. Hypocrite.

Lady Chatterly

2004-12-30 22:11:59 UTC

For the seriousness with which people must subscribe to maybe read
what you claim is there a reference to they regard man being a wog
that is weird.

--
Lady Chatterly

"Is this a bot or a person pretending to be a bot?" -- Nihilist

Winding Highway

2004-12-22 19:00:27 UTC

Post by Winding Highway
Because those countries lacked the health infrastructure to collect

such data.

Post by Winding Highway
In fact the mostly didnt realise they had an aids epidemic as such

until

Post by Winding Highway
western researchers went there in the 1980s and investigated what had

long been

Post by Winding Highway
known as "slim disease" by the locals, and found it was aids.

Whose to say that those reasearchers didn't keep statistics? If they
were truely "researchers" they would have.

Dont be so tiresome. The questions you ask about Africa and AIDS merely
confirm, yet again, your ignorance and naivety about both. Your ideas about
Africa seem to be gleaned from some old black-and-white Tarzan movies you came
across somewhere. Your past statements about AIDS, though presented with
bombastic certitude, are replete with errors and misinformation.

Post by Winding Highway
I stated, correctly by the way, that
there is no relationship between HIV and foreskin.

There is no scientific basis for such a statement. The bulk of the research to
date suggests that there is a relationship. Like it or not, that research is
state of the art at present. Why dont you just have the balls to tell the
truth and state: "Current empidemiological research shows a relationship
between foreskins and susceptibiltily to HIV. As a foreskin enthusiast, I
dont want to accept that. I cant think of any other specific explanation for
the relationship, and neither can anybody else, but Im sure hoping one comes
along. In the meanwhile I will keep calling for more research to provide
definite proof. Maybe we foreskin enthusiasts will get lucky and the
relationship will be found to be spurious".

Post by Winding Highway
If it is proven, I will
accept it,

You will never accept it because no matter what the evidence is, you will
demand more research and more evidence.

Post by Winding Highway
Tell me Winding...do you honestly believe that if the entire
world was circumcised at birth, that HIV infections would fall by the
millions?

From the research evidence to date, definintely. If you overlay a map of
circumcision status with a map of hiv infection rates in Africa, they overlap
almost perfectly. And let me make a prediction: as the disease sweeps though
Asia in the next decade and beyond, infection rates will be much, much higher
in uncircumcised nations like India, China, and Myanmar than in circumcised
nations like the Philippines, Korea, and Pakistan. Care to bet on it?
.

Briar Rabbit

2004-12-23 03:11:07 UTC

Post by a***@alltel.net
Tell me Winding...do you honestly believe that if the entire
world was circumcised at birth, that HIV infections would fall by the
millions?

I suggest the following article be read:

Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/halperin_bailey.html

I quote: " In populous regions such as South Asia where a large
population of men are uncircumcised, the number of infections
attributable to lack of male circumcision could soon reach into the
millions."

Kenny Thomas

2004-12-23 06:15:25 UTC

Post by Winding Highway
Because those countries lacked the health infrastructure to

collect

Post by Winding Highway
such data.

Post by Winding Highway
In fact the mostly didnt realise they had an aids epidemic as such

until

Post by Winding Highway
western researchers went there in the 1980s and investigated what had

long been

Post by Winding Highway
known as "slim disease" by the locals, and found it was aids.

Whose to say that those reasearchers didn't keep statistics? If they
were truely "researchers" they would have.

Sure they do. I do not deny that I know everything about Africa or
HIV/AIDS. But what I do know is how HIV/AIDS is transmitted and how it
is prevented. Condoms, abstaining from sex, and education. That's how
you prevent the disease, not through circumcision. What past statements
have I made about HIV/AIDS that are erroneous?

Post by Winding Highway
I stated, correctly by the way, that
there is no relationship between HIV and foreskin.

relationship

Post by Winding Highway
between foreskins and susceptibiltily to HIV. As a foreskin

enthusiast, I

Post by Winding Highway
dont want to accept that. I cant think of any other specific

explanation for

Post by Winding Highway
the relationship, and neither can anybody else, but Im sure hoping one comes
along. In the meanwhile I will keep calling for more research to provide
definite proof. Maybe we foreskin enthusiasts will get lucky and the
relationship will be found to be spurious".

No, I will not make such a statement. No one has provided me, with
research that is complete. Those that are performing the research you
are speaking about are STILL researching it. Even they won't say for
sure there is a correlation. So, what I will say is that there is no
COMPLETE and ACCEPTED study by any high standing organization that
states there is a correlation between HIV and circumcision status. I
am not a "foreskin enthusiast" as you call me. I am a fighter for human
rights, in which is the right to an intact body. I honestly could care
less if there is a correlation between circumcision and HIV. It doesn't
really matter to me. All that matters is that people are given the
choice.

Post by Winding Highway
If it is proven, I will
accept it,

You will never accept it because no matter what the evidence is, you will
demand more research and more evidence.

You really shouldn't put words in people's mouths. I never said that,
and never will.

Post by Winding Highway
Tell me Winding...do you honestly believe that if the entire
world was circumcised at birth, that HIV infections would fall by the
millions?

Please give me citations that contain this research evidence,
preferably not from the Boston Globe? I would also like to see this map
that you speak of and the sources of information on such a map. Can you
provide them? If so, I, and I am sure others, would love to see it.

No, I will not bet. I don't bet on human lives or the rights of human
beings. Sorry to hear that you do.

Winding Highway

2005-01-17 17:36:31 UTC

From: "Kenny Thomas"
No one has provided me, with
research that is complete.

Nobody ever will, because any research that shows men with foreskins are more
susceptible to hiv infection will meet with your usual objections about sample
size, confounding factors, correlation not being causation, or cultural
historical religious dietary geographical etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
factors not being taken into account. Hugh Young and other foreskin
enthusiasts here will join you in eternal denial.

If you dispute this, please provide a brief description of a research study --
one that could conceivably be funded and executed -- that WOULD meet all your
objections.

I honestly could care
less if there is a correlation between circumcision and HIV.

That is a pretty appaling statement, rather like saying a few years back:
"I honestly couldnt care less if there is a correlation between contaminated
blood transfusions and hiv." or "I honestly couldnt care less if theres a
correlation between IV drug abuse and hiv". It is because people cared about
correlations between possible risk factors and hiv that we have come as far as
we have in understanding and combatting the disease.

And let me make a prediction: as the disease
sweeps though

Post by Winding Highway
Asia in the next decade and beyond, infection rates will be much,

much higher

Post by Winding Highway
in uncircumcised nations like India, China, and Myanmar than in

circumcised

Post by Winding Highway
nations like the Philippines, Korea, and Pakistan. Care to bet on

it?
No, I will not bet. I don't bet on human lives or the rights of human beings.

Tsk tsk Kenny, using your self-vaunted "debating skills" to avoid the
challenge? OK, lets remove the bet.

I predict that as the disease sweeps though Asia in the next decade and
beyond, infection rates will be much, much higher in uncircumcised nations like
India, China, and Myanmar than in circumcised nations like the Philippines,
Korea, and Pakistan.

Do you want to:
a) agree
b) disagree
c) cop out again?

Notice incidentally that I make my prediction without any reservations about
differences in geography, religion, number of spouses, income levels, climate,
hygiene, cock size, or any other spurious loopholes that I could use as an
escape if I prove to be wrong. Its a straight, direct, unencumbered challenge
-- to you and any other foreskin enthusiasts out there.

j***@gmail.com

2017-03-24 20:03:25 UTC

I predict that as the disease sweeps though Asia in the next decade and
beyond, infection rates will be much, much higher in uncircumcised nations like
India, China, and Myanmar than in circumcised nations like the Philippines,
Korea, and Pakistan.

Do you want to:
a) agree
b) disagree
c) cop out again?

"Notice incidentally that I make my prediction without any reservations about
differences in geography, religion, number of spouses, income levels, climate,
hygiene, cock size, or any other spurious loopholes that I could use as an
escape if I prove to be wrong. Its a straight, direct, unencumbered challenge
-- to you and any other foreskin enthusiasts out there"
..................

Well, enough time has passed to make a call on this. But, happily, windinghighway hasn't posted for years.

None

2017-03-27 04:13:04 UTC

Post by Winding Highway
I predict that as the disease sweeps though Asia in the next decade and
beyond, infection rates will be much, much higher in uncircumcised nations like
India, China, and Myanmar than in circumcised nations like the Philippines,
Korea, and Pakistan.
a) agree
b) disagree
c) cop out again?
"Notice incidentally that I make my prediction without any reservations about
differences in geography, religion, number of spouses, income levels, climate,
hygiene, cock size, or any other spurious loopholes that I could use as an
escape if I prove to be wrong. Its a straight, direct, unencumbered challenge
-- to you and any other foreskin enthusiasts out there"
..................
Well, enough time has passed to make a call on this. But, happily, windinghighway hasn't posted for years.

I'm not sure what kind of alternative facts this original post ever
relied on.

j***@gmail.com

2017-03-29 15:52:28 UTC

Post by None

I'm not sure what kind of alternative facts this original post ever
relied on.

I think the sources are in there somewhere.

a***@alltel.net

2004-12-10 01:14:07 UTC

Post by Administrator
Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases???
Is that found in the adult section of your favorite little emporium
catering to pervs of your type?

No, it's usually found in Universities, mostly health related.

Post by Administrator
O'Reilly hit the nail on the head. In parts of Africa it is still
believed that AIDS can be cured by having intercourse with an infant
female virgin.
None of the articles you referred to were peer reviewed and the studies
quoted were too small to be of any value...and also failed to mention
that the U.S., the most circumcised industrial nation in the world, for
two decades had the highest HIV infection rate on the planet.

The entire Journal on STDs is peer reviewed (according to their
website). You are also incorrectly interpreting the HIV infection rate
in the United States. In fact, the USA has a high HIV infection rate,
yes, but it is not the highest (according to the CDC Wonder Database).
In addition, it is a GOOD thing that the USA has a higher number of
people living with HIV. What that shows is that these people are LIVING
longer. Countries in Africa have lower numbers because the people get
it, and then die quickly.

uncircumcised

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
men have an HIV rate that is 11 times greater, while a second study in
India has found uncircumcised men have a seven times higher rate of
infection. Other studies showed that Zambia and Ethiopia had lower
rates of HIV infection in areas of the countries where circumcision
was more common. Researchers have suspected a link between
circumcision and HIV prevention for more than 15 years. In the United
States, studies have shown that high circumcision rates have had a
protective benefit for heterosexual Americans. But most specialists
have not recommended the procedure because they believed that other
factors such as religious and cultural beliefs might explain the link.
The recent Kenya data, however, have given new impetus among some AIDS
experts to focus more attention on the issue. The Kenya study was
completed by the Demographic and Health Surveys, a Maryland-based
independent group that conducts detailed surveys around the world.
Leaders in at least two African countries, Swaziland and Zambia, have
said that, while they want more definitive evidence linking
circumcision with preventing HIV, they say the epidemiological studies
have startled them.
"Watch this. There could be some breakthroughs coming out of this,"
Derek von Wissell, director of Swaziland's National Emergency Response
Council on HIV/AIDS, said in a telephone interview from Mbabane, the
capital. "If the evidence comes through, we could really look at this
as a preventive measure. It's almost as effective as a vaccine. The
effect would be massive."
World Health Organization officials, however, warn that ongoing
clinical trials need to be completed before deciding whether
circumcision should be recommended as a prevention tool against the
spread of HIV. Those studies, underway in Kenya, Uganda, and South
Africa, will be completed in one to three years.
"The numbers are striking, but we have to make sure that's really the
effect from circumcision," said Kevin R. O'Reilly, a WHO specialist on
the treatment and prevention of HIV and AIDS. "We don't know if the
elevenfold increase we're seeing in Kenya is related to

circumcision

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
alone or differences in sex patterns, religious patterns, and other
things."
O'Reilly said that even if male circumcision was shown to help prevent
HIV, "the question is, what do you do with that information? . . . The
preference for or against circumcision among different groups is a
fairly strongly-held conviction. It has a lot to do with group
identify. In tribal circumstances, it might be us vs. them -- we
circumcise and they don't."
He also expressed concern that some men who believe circumcision
prevents HIV might abandon other safe-sex precautions. "We have a long
history in HIV/AIDS prevention learning time. . . . There is no magic
bullet."
Circumcision, the removal of the foreskin of the penis, is one of the
world's oldest and most common surgical procedures. It is part of a
ritual practiced for thousands of years by Jews and Muslims. Many
Christians and people of other faiths also are circumcised, and the
procedure is most often performed on newborn babies boys in the USA.
According to a review of scientific research by the US Agency for
International Development, the inner surface of the foreskin

absorbs

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
HIV up to nine times more efficiently than female cervical tissue.
Circumcision is already known to reduce a man's risk of penile cancer.
A study of 393 men from a clinic in Tuscon, published last month in
the journal Sexually Transmitted Diseases, also found that
circumcision may reduce the risk of cervical cancer in female sexual
partners. That confirmed an earlier five-country study published in
the New England Journal of Medicine.
In Africa, the countries with the highest rates of HIV infection are
in the far south, which have low circumcision rates. Countries in West
Africa and the island nation of Madagascar have lower HIV

prevalence

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
and very high male circumcision rates.
For years, most AIDS experts have said that the lower rates were
largely attributable to large Muslim populations, which generally had
more conservative sexual behaviors than Christian communities.
Conservative religious beliefs and sexual behavior apparently do not
explain some situations for low HIV prevalence. In Madagascar, where
nearly 100 percent of boys are circumcised by puberty, about 10
percent of the population is Muslim, 45 percent Christian, and 45
percent follow traditional beliefs. The island also has high rates of
sexually transmitted infections, which can increase risk for HIV
transmission. And yet the island's HIV prevalence is estimated at 1.4
percent.
"It's an intriguing question why HIV prevalence varies so

dramatically

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
across different parts of Africa as well as parts of Asia," Daniel
Halperin, a USAID expert on HIV prevention, said in an interview from
Washington. "The main, although not the only, factor explaining this
appears to be male circumcision."
But Halperin, who has been one of the most passionate supporters for
more research on male circumcision and health, said that USAID would
not recommend mass circumcision campaigns to lower HIV risk. "It
really needs to come from the Africans themselves," he said. "They may
be the ones to implement it on their own or ask for donor

assistance.

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
Maybe that's when things will change."
In Zambia, USAID has just begun funding its first training sessions
for health workers to perform voluntary circumcision surgery. Emmanuel
Oladipo Otolorin, a regional HIV/AIDS adviser for Johns Hopkins
University's international public health institute, said that African
countries should start training health workers now to perform safe
circumcisions, instead of waiting for further data.
"One cannot ignore these observational studies," Otolorin said by
telephone from Lusaka. "Now many men are going to traditional
circumcisers and some are coming out with terrible complications and
infections. So why don't we strengthen sites that are already
providing facilities on a limited scale?"
In September, Otolorin posted a small note outside a clinic in Lusaka
advertising free circumcisions. He said more than 50 men showed up.
Only a few mentioned that they wanted to be circumcised as a
prevention for HIV; most said they believed circumcision would either
improve their hygiene or sexual satisfaction.
"But can you imagine if we now go out and say, 'Oh, male

circumcision

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
is associated with a lower risk of HIV?' " Otolorin asked. "All the
young men would be queuing up to have this done. We have to be
cautious about this. We know it is not an absolute protection. But
this is an intervention we cannot ignore."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/

Post by Intoxicatingmoon
circumcised_men_less_likely_to_get_aids/
==========================================
Circumcised men less likely to get AIDS
By John Donnelly, Globe Staff | November 16, 2004
JOHANNESBURG -- Men who are circumcised have a dramatically lower rate
of HIV infection than those who are not, according to new studies in
Africa and India, suggesting that the ancient surgical procedure may
play a role in helping prevent the spread of the deadly virus.
One unpublished household survey in Kenya has shown that

uncircumcised

circumcision

absorbs

prevalence

dramatically

assistance.

circumcision

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2004/11/16/