Friday, September 14, 2012

What does "60% relative reduction of the risk of contracting HIV" with circumcision means?

What does "60% relative reduction of the risk of contracting HIV" with circumcision means? 

It means that if you are having unprotected sex with South African prostitutes, circumcision may reduce your chances of contracting HIV from 2.4% to 1.18%, i.e., your actual risk was reduced by a simple 1.31%.

However, this was based in 3 experiments with actual people, and a large number of individuals failed to show up for controls. The number of no-shows was larger than the number of infected individuals who showed up, so if those individuals had shown up for their controls,
they could have swayed the results either way.

Uncontrolled variables: were all the males exposed to the risk (unprotected sex with an infected female)? Unknown. Were some males always using condom or didn't have sex partners during that time? Unknown. Could some males have contracted the HIV through any other way other than heterosexual intercourse, i.e. the circumcision procedure itself, tattoos, medical interventions, drug use, homosexual intercourse? Unknown. What does this means? That the result of the experiment are useless.

So when Hillary Clinton stands in front of the crowd and states "This procedure reduces the risk of female-to-male transmission by more than 60 percent and for the rest of the man’s life, so the impact can be phenomenal" I just want to bang my head on the closest surface.

The Johns Medical University doctors like Dr. Gray or Dr. Tobian, participants of the studies that came with this conclusion, are simply giving Bill and Melinda Gates a run for their money with their circum fetishism, proper inheritors of Mr. J.H. Kellogg that they are.

And yet, this is the "new and enhanced" benefits of circumcision V.2012 as presented by the luminaries at the American Academy of Pediatrics on August 2012. When you consider that at least 3 of the 8 members of the Task Force have strong religious bias towards circumcision, that one of them recognizes that 20% of his clientele has to do with circumcision issues, and that none of them have a foreskin, and that they know that the circumcision rates are coming down and that people are seeing the human rights issue of cutting healthy tissue from newborns to sell it for medical research, makeup manufacturing, etc (because the parents authorized disposing of the tissues in any way the hospital sees fit - and they can "donate" it to a transnational in exchange for money donations), then it's easy to see why the Task Force came up with the scripted "benefits outweigh risks" note that littered the mainstream media (starting with Reuters) a couple of weeks ago.

No comments:

Post a Comment