Joseph4GI Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
2	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV "I've played your game enough here." I'm afraid the only person playing "games" here, is you. Saying "HIV is higher where circumcision rates are lower" is misleading; all of the HIV cases in these countries could be circumcised men. Alright, it's not quite as bad as this, but the HIV prevalence in these countries WAS in the circumcised men. Insisting on interpreting the data the way you do demonstrates an intent to hide these numbers. "Cameroon, the only country that has a high circumcision rate…	/r/MensRights	30/05/11 08:59 AM
2	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV At this point, I'll have to double check. I was quite sure that all three of these "studies" were cut shorter than that. There are other problems with these studies, but given that they were 100% accurate, the results of these studies fail to correlate with the results of others (see below), and with real world data. The "slower growth of HIV infections" isn't observable in the countries presented. And I love the "can almost be directly linked to" part. Even the "researchers" themselves can neve…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 02:54 PM
4	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV And you didn't address the other studies either: According to USAID, "there appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher." http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf "Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence da…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 02:27 PM
6	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV I don't exactly see how being the origin of HIV eliminates Cameroon; the rate of circumcision is pretty high there, at about 91%. Shouldn't the "reduction" in HIV have been the most evident there? Ghana: This may be true. But the prevalence of HIV WAS among the circumcised. Lesotho: The circumcision rate is 23%, but the ratio circumcised men vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 22.8 vs 15.2. The explanation given HERE, though, is different to yours: "The relationship between male circumcision a…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 01:52 PM
3	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV Are you sure we're talking about the same study? If I remember correctly, the study only lasted a little more than a year. And yes, I'm afraid the study is questionable for many reasons. One could say they ended it early because they liked the evidence they had, and the trend was going in an unfavorable direction; they circumcised the remaining men and called it "unethical" not to so as to avoid having to follow up on their study. But again, let's assume for the sake of argument that these "stud…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 12:12 PM
5	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV The claim is that "circumcision reduces the risk of transmission by 60% in males." The studies I reference show a prevalence of HIV transmission among the circumcised. These studies, along with data from other studies, and other countries, do not conform to this claim. The question is, why? If you have to tinker with "how you collect the data," then doesn't this tell you that the claim only works for a specific situation? (The studies being used to make this claim?) The question remains the same…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 11:46 AM
3	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV The claim presented is: "Circumcision reduces the risk of transmission by 60% in males." The evidence in Africa show that there is a prevalence in HIV transmission among circumcised men. In Malaysia and the Philippines, this 60% figure is also not observable. Neither is it in the US and Europe. I need to know why. I'll admit, there are many things I don't understand, and I do have a bias against circumcision. But that aside, I have a bias against using shoddy studies to make extraordinary claims…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 11:41 AM
6	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV "Saying that circumcision does not reduce risk of infection by 60% vs uncircumcised males because there are populations of circumcised men in Africa with HIV IS a logical fallacy." That WOULD be a logical fallacy, except I never made that claim. The claim that I made was this: Real world data does not conform to the claim that "Circumcision reduces the risk of transmission by 60% in males." In the countries presented, the prevalence of HIV was HIGHER among the circumcised, vs. the intact. That's…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 11:23 AM
6	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV Yes, appealing to authority IS a logical fallacy. It's called argumentum ad verecundiam. And, in this case, because you're trying to use "authority" to make me look bad, it's also ad hominem. Poisoning the well. Again, the claim is: "Circumcision reduces the risk of transmission by 60% in males." It's not reducing it in males in the countries I present. If the data does not correlate, then there is something wrong in either the data in the so-called "studies," or there is a flaw in the real worl…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 11:19 AM
5	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV "Circumcision reduces the risk of transmission by 60% in males." If this is true, then I need to know why this does not correlate in the countries I've presented, and with the data in other studies. " Circumcision, in addition to education programs, condom availability, and reducing poverty will have more of an effect on reducing HIV prevalence than education programs, condom availability, and reducing poverty on their own." Why hasn't it had this effect in the countries I present? "My reference…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 11:11 AM
7	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV I think you're missing the question. I'll ask again. The claim is that circumcision is supposed to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 60%. In the countries that I present evidence from, this isn't the case. Why? I'd like to know how scientists ascertained how much each of their subjects had sex, and how many partners they had. And how old each of their partners were etc. It all comes down to the same question. If circumcision is supposed to "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%," why isn't this evi…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 11:01 AM
7	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV I'm sorry, but you're just finding reasons to not present the evidence you're asked for. Now you're appealing to authority; another logical fallacy. The question remains; if circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV by 60%," then why isn't this reduction apparent in countries where circumcision is already prevalent and/or universal? Why only in Africa? Why not the US? Malaysia? The Philippines? 6 other African countries?	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 10:53 AM
3	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV Actually, no. If you've even bothered to look at it, the authors themselves have a personal belief FOR circumcision. If I read correctly, they were EXPECTING a reduction, and didn't find any. Or am I reading that incorrectly? I'm afraid that the "false interpretation" and the "bad science" is something that circumcision advocates are guilty of. Tell us about that 60%. 60% of what? A lifetime? 1.5 years? (The length of the study?) And from what is that figure extrapolated from? Wasn't the ABSOLUT…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 10:50 AM
4	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV "Except where HIV prevalence is high or significantly impairing the affected, and cost/benefits of other methods don't come anywhere near the reduction rate of male circumcision." Not even there. As the evidence I provide shows. "I've have a colleague (he worked for Gates Foundation, basically researching why their aid projects did NOT work) who worked in Africa and were asked by locals to show how to put on a condom (since the locals knew it prevented HIV), as they did not understand what that …	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 10:18 AM
3	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV No, you are countering arguments I never made. It's called "talking to yourself." You are ignoring the main argument; that being that "studies" that do not correlate with real live data are suspect. I'm not sure what you think my "hypothesis" is. I am questioning the claim "circumcision prevents HIV transmission 60%" of the time." If this is true, then why isn't this evident in the reald world? What is dangerous is providing a dubious alternative "prevention method" to what we know is already co…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 10:10 AM
1	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV I think I'm pretty much done... Peace fellas...	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:58 AM
3	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV The question is the same. You can can waive around your precious "studies" all you want. In the meantime, circumcised men are getting AIDS at higher rates than non-circumcised males. I'd like to hear a scientific explanation for that, thanx...	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:58 AM
4	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV Answer the question please?	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:57 AM
4	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV How does this happen? Can you tell us? Studies can show all they want, but why don't they correlate with real world data? And uh, let's back up a little bit; "Unprotected sex circumcised is 60% less likely to contract HIV than uncircumcised." This is a claim based on the hand-picked statistics in those studies. Making this claim is a post-hoc argument which doesn't really establish a causal link. Tell us, since you know all about it, what is that link? How exactly does not having a foreskin "red…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:56 AM
6	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV "I'm not goingo to cite something that every schoolboy knows..." Right. Can we say, logical fallacy?	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:52 AM
6	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV I think arguing about the "health benefits" is the wrong angle from which to look at it. Circumcision is an action, and not circumcising is inaction. One is a forced phenomenon, the other is not. It is circumcision that requires a rational explanation, not having normal, healthy body parts. It is circumcision advocates who have an axe to grind; they need to explain their actions. They need to make a strong case for cutting off part of a normal, healthy body part, esp. when it comes to doing this…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:51 AM
7	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV It's all really plain and simple. You can churn out all of the "studies" you want, and try to prove that circumcision "does" something. (They've been trying to prove it "does" something for at least a century now...) If circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV by 60%" as these studies claim, then this would be reflected in real world environments, where there is already a prevalence of circumcised men. They don't. Even if these "studies" were correct, their numbers simply don't line up with the rea…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:15 AM
1	Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV Yes. Real-world data is much more compelling than data obtained in so-called "controlled studies" where every aspect of the so-called "study" was controlled. What happens in a controlled enviroment does not necessarily translate to the real world, as real world data shows. When statistics don't match up with real world data, the problem isn't with real world data, there's got to be something wrong with these "statistics" and how they were acquired. When you look at exactly who conducted these "s…	/r/MensRights	29/05/11 08:04 AM