Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and Aids infection.
But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be counterproductive.
<hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Circumcision of HIV+ males increases risk to women http://su.pr/1rVic4
>Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have >shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and Aids >infection.
>But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be >counterproductive.
Post this to alt.circumcision. Everyone there will be your friend for life. :) -- <http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> 5,305 days and counting...
> Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have > shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and Aids > infection.
> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be > counterproductive.
It's a bad idea, the early studies have been shown to be flawed. There's no justification for it at all.
> Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have > shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and > Aids > infection.
> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be > counterproductive.
***Your second paragraph is ludicrous. True, people are not statistics, but everything in the world, including people, constitute a statistic of some sort.
> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be > counterproductive.
I'll leave discussions of the issue of circumcision and HIV to health professionals, but "...people are not statistics..." is something we need to repeat -- to ourselves and to our politicians, regardless of which country we live in.
> Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have > shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and Aids > infection.
> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be > counterproductive.
The studies done, if I remember correctly, were done in groups where infant circumcision is the (religious) norm. Again, if I remember correctly, the studies showed only a marginal "improvement" (20% is the figure I seem to recall) over the non-circumcised group. Even at the time and amongst the small sample it was a theory that the religious beliefs of the groups may have also played a role in the lower percentage of HIV.
The only accurate way of preventing the spread of HIV is through the threefold process of knowing one's HIV status, taking ARVs (reduce viral load) if one is HIV positive and TO USE A CONDOM FOR EACH AND EVERY SEX ACT NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO END IN PREGNANCY. (Even in a monogamous marriage).
> Some have advocated universal male circumcision because some studies have > shown that it could statistically reduce the rate of HIV transmission and > Aids > infection.
> But people are not statistics and such a course of action could be > counterproductive.
It's a bad idea, the early studies have been shown to be flawed.
