Wednesday, September 26, 2012

I don't get USAID

I don't get USAID, I really don't.

In 2007 they stated in a report: Clinical trials have now confirmed the efficacy of male circumcision (MC) in reducing female-to-male HIV transmission. (Document: COSTING MALE CIRCUMCISION IN SWAZILAND AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF CIRCUMCISION AS AN HIV INTERVENTION

In 2009, they stated: 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. (Document: Levels and Spread of HIV Seroprevalence and Associated Factors: Evidence from National Household Surveys

In a blog entry from 2010, ("Fighting HIV with circumcision") they say: "Dr. Emanuel, from the White House Office of Management and Budget, blogged extensively during a recent two-week trip through Africa.  In this installment he discusses the potential for using male circumcision to prevent HIV transmission. 'Three separate randomized trials have shown that male circumcision is among the most effective interventions against HIV/AIDS, reducing transmission by about 60 percent. This is a huge impact. As one AIDS researcher has said to me, if we had a vaccine that effective, we would be sparing no effort to distribute and administer it.  But widespread deployment of male circumcision has not yet occurred.'"

The Barefoot Intactivist commented: "USAID researchers found circumcision does NOT prevent HIV. From a February 2009 report: “In 10 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence was HIGHER among circumcised men.” [Emphasis added.] Source: Why is USAID supporting the quack science of genital cutting as HIV prevention, even after their own researchers found it to be bogus?"

The blog administrator responded: "In March 2007, the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS/World Health Organization (UNAIDS/WHO) issued normative guidance [PDF] stating that Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC) should be recognized as an additional important intervention to reduce the risk of male heterosexually acquired HIV infection and that VMMC should always be implemented as part of a comprehensive HIV prevention package. This package includes the provision of HIV testing and counseling services; treatment for sexually transmitted infections; the promotion of safer sex practices, such as abstinence from penetrative sex, reduction in the number of sex partners, and delay in the onset of sexual relations; and the provision of male and female condoms, and promotion of their correct and consistent use. The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) looks to UNAIDS/WHO to set global norms and standards, provide policy and program guidance for the provision of safe and efficient VMMC services, and conduct high-level advocacy."

How does this make sense? How do they find that there is no pattern of association (in contradiction to the infamous 3 randomized trials) and yet ignore their own finding because it's the UNAIDS/WHO who sets the global norms and standards?

Cognitive dissonance much?

No comments:

Post a Comment