Circumcision Studied in Africa as AIDS Preventive

	posted by Matt on 11:45 PM April 27th, 2006
	Apparently the fact that circumcision doesn't prevent HIV transmission is irrelevant to the Zambian government. Story here.

<  Woman rapes, lies, and tries to kill child... and gets to be on Oprah | Drunk Mother Suffocates Baby - Should Get "Some Prison Time"  >

  

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Once again (Score:1) by Davidadelong on 11:41 AM April 28th, 2006 EST (#1) This was discussed on one of the threads previously on MANN. I posed a question before as to the control groups that they cited for their "statistics". Their comparisons are somewhat suspect. Specifically if the uncircumcised group were tribesmen that lived in the bush, and the circumcised Men were city dwellers that were educated. What was the education level of average for the uncircumcised Men versus the circumcised Men? What kind of environment did they live in? What kind of religious beliefs did the different groups have? There are so many different variables that would and could play into this that the over simplification of the study stinks of ignorance on the part of the people that did the study. Small cuts on the fore skin can leak blood, OK removing the foreskin means that the Men will not get small cuts on the remaining head, shaft of the penis? Unless of course the belief is that due to the pain of the Male mutalation and resulting recovery period that the Men will abstain and therefore reduce the spread of aids for a while? HOGWASH!

I'm making a note of this one (Score:1) by kavius on 09:34 AM May 1st, 2006 EST (#2) http://www.vius.ca This is a perfect example of bad science, leading to poor government policy. I have the debate with a friend of mine that this does not happen. Here we have a great example of it. Now lets extend this to the western world and see if there is any science that should be questioned, that has led to public policy...

[an error occurred while processing this directive]