Circumcision study supports HIV theory

[goldent]

Interesting in light of all of the circumcision discussions...

source

Circumcision is known to reduce a man's risk of HIV infection by at least half, but scientists don't know why. A new study offers support for the theory that removing the foreskin deprives troublesome bacteria of a place to live, leaving the immune system in much better shape to keep the human immunodeficiency virus at bay.

For some reason link is not showing up - here is is:

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-sci-penis-microbiome-20130416,0,1924713.story

[Warpy]

1. Mutilation whining in 5..4...3...2...

Honestly, the health benefits have been know via epidemiology studies for a long time and not just for HIV. Partners of circumcised men have always had lower rates of cervical cancer, also.

The surgery isn't without risk, though, and every parent should be given all the information we have, both pro and con, so they can make informed decisions.

At least these days we finally got them to use anesthetics when it's done in hospitals.

Just make sure your mohel isn't one of those perverts, if you go that route.

[idwiyo]

2. It really helps to CHECK if what you see in newspapers is actually true.

Here is a link to the article with appropriate citation to the original research that will explain why these claims are nothing more than pure unadulterated BS.

BTW, that "by at least half" claim? Have a look below (better read entire article) what it really means. Definitely not what you think or what that newspaper article claims.

When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS
Published May 22, 2012 | By Brian D. Earp

Step 2. How not to report results

Now why should we doubt that the circumcised men actually did have a lower rate of HIV infections in the first place, poor experiment design notwithstanding, as I suggested in the paragraph above? After all, the 60% figure that’s being thrown around in media reports is a pretty big number, and it can’t be off by that much, even if the studies had some flaws, right? Not so fast. Do you know what the “60%” statistic is actually referring to? Boyle and Hill explain:

What does the frequently cited “60% relative reduction” in HIV infections actually mean? Across all three female-to-male trials, of the 5,411 men subjected to male circumcision, 64 (1.18%) became HIV-positive. Among the 5,497 controls, 137 (2.49%) became HIV-positive, so the absolute decrease in HIV infection was only 1.31%.

That’s right: 60% is the relative reduction in infection rates, comparing two vanishingly small percentages: a clever bit of arithmetic that generates a big-seeming number, yet one which wildly misrepresents the results of the study. The absolute decrease in HIV infection between the treatment and control groups in these experiments was a mere 1.31%, which can hardly be considered clinically significant, especially given the numerous confounds that the studies failed to rule out.

[goldent]

3. That's exactly what I would think by "reduce risk by at least half"

I don't know any other way to interpret it.

I know many people don't really understand percentages and risk very well, but this is how it is discussed - nothing unique here - this is the same language that is used when it is said (for example) that being obese increases your risk of cancer by X%.

[idwiyo]

4. I doubt your average person would know what that 60% actually means.

Your average reader also would not know that circumcised group of people did not engage in sex for the duration of the time it took them to recover from the surgery, was given extra counselling and free condoms. The control group was engaged in sexual activities for entire duration of the trail, did not have any extra counselling, and did not receive free condoms. This is just to start with. Read the rest of the article for more details about serious flaws in this research.

Clearly both groups did not have equal playing field. One group had a clear advantage over another group because we already know that sex education and condoms work. Therefor that 60% claim is bogus. Can't compare apples to oranges.

[bemildred]

5. I just assume they are spouting bull with stories like this.

It's just a heuristic, but it's works amazingly well.

[idwiyo]

6. Great advice, thank you. :)