Reply to German court bans circumcision for non-medical reasons

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "German court bans circumcision for non-medical reasons"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]^^I don’t know what you mean by “every time this is brought up, it's ignored by supporters of circumcision”.  The anti-circumcision group hasn’t provided anything that contradicts the position of the CDC, WHO, NIH, etc. that circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of disease/viruses.  You cherry picking the few studies quoted in the link that support your position.  While there are some studies that didn’t show conclusive evidence of reduced transmission, many other studies have. The totality of evidence supports circumcision which is why the CDC, NIH, WHO, etc. supports.

The link you provided for “Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity” actually doesn’t link to an article. I finally found it here http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf  .  Did you actually read it?  I question whether you did because in the very first paragraph the authors state they “question not the internal validity of the studies but their external validity….External validity is the issue that questions the generalization from the RCCT results [the studies showing circumcision significantly reduces transmission of HIV] to a policy of ‘immediate and rapid adoption’ of circumcision of men across Africa.”  I don’t think you read it because it's not disputing the fact that the studies showed circumcision significantly reduces the transmission of the HIV virus, rather it questions the policy push in African for mass circumcisions in terms of ethics (informed consent, etc.) and cost effectiveness (is that the best use of limited resources).    The authors cite studies that seem to contradict the RCCT results but their intention is to show that the results of the RCCT may not be applicable to other populations in Africa.  In fact, in the paragraph immediately following the studies seemingly not supporting circumcision for HIV transmission reduction, the authors state “Therefore, although the [i]efficacy[/i] of using male circumcisions in reducing HIV infections was significant within the strict circumstances of the three trials, taken to scale under the very different prevailing circumstances of Africa, their [i]effectiveness [/i]cannot be generalized.”  The studies, in fact, were so conclusive and significant in support of circumcision that the researchers stopped the study early.  If you have any experience with research studies, you know how unusual that is.  Again, it's the totality of evidence, not cherry picking what supports your position and ignoring the rest.

While searching for your article, I came a cross a rebuttal to it that was compelling.  http://www.ghdonline.org/uploads/Circumcision_Denialism_Unfounded_and_Unscientific_AJPM.pdf

There’s plenty of evidence supporting circumcision and cherry picking/taking things out of context won't change that.  If you don’t want to have your DS circumcised, don’t.  Find a better cause to direct your energy and resources.  I’m finished discussing the topic.

[/quote]

Thanks for the response and for link to the rebuttal letter - it was an interesting read.

I am aware that the University of California study questioned the external validity, it's evident from the title. It concludes that "Studies published since the RCCTs show that
(1) male circumcision is not correlated with lower HIV prevalence in some sub-Saharan populations; (2) circumcision is correlated with increased transmission of
HIV to women; and (3) male circumcision is not a cost effective strategy." I don't want to make this too long a post, anyone interested can read the details since the link is provided.

Regarding the studies I linked to, you can call it cherry picking if you wish, I call it (as it simply is) different studies showing different things about STD prevention, which shows there isn't scientific/ medical consensus on this, therefore my conclusion that the research to date is inconclusive.[/quote]

ohhh really, i guess as another poster pointed out the cdc is a bunch of lying fools?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics