Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Studies showing "benefits of circumcision" highly flawed [View all]
When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDSPublished May 22, 2012 | By Brian D. Earp
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
Must read in full. Proceeding from a longer study by Boyle and Hill (2011).
Key excerpts:
A handful of circumcision advocates have recently begun haranguing the global health community to adopt widespread foreskin-removal as a way to fight AIDS. Their recommendations follow the publication of three [1] randomized controlled clinical trials (RCCTs) conducted in Africa between 2005 and 2007.
...
While the gold standard for medical trials is the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the African trials suffered [a number of serious problems] including problematic randomisation and selection bias, inadequate blinding, lack of placebo-control (male circumcision could not be concealed), inadequate equipoise, experimenter bias, attrition (673 drop-outs in female-to-male trials), not investigating male circumcision as a vector for HIV transmission, not investigating non-sexual HIV transmission, as well as lead-time bias, supportive bias (circumcised men received additional counselling sessions), participant expectation bias, and time-out discrepancy (restraint from sexual activity only by circumcised men).
...
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%.
...
Some major issues with trying to roll-out circumcision in particular include the fact that the RCCT participantswho were not representative of the general population to begin withhad (1) continuous counseling and yearlong medical care, as well as (2) frequent monitoring for infection, and (3) surgeries performed in highly sanitary conditions by trained, Western doctors. All of which would be unlikely to replicate at a larger scale in the parts of the world suffering from the worst of the AIDS epidemic. And of course, circumcisions carried out in un-sanitary conditions (that is, the precise conditions that are likelier to hold in those very places) carry a huge risk of transmitting HIV at the interface of open wounds and dirty surgical instruments. So this is a serious point.
He notes that even accepting these highly flawed studies, condom use has been found to be about 95 times more effective in stopping the spread of AIDS. The propaganda about circumcision is actively dangerous due to "risk compensation," or the effect of alleged protective measures causing people not to bother with real ones. One of the cited reports supports the misconception engendered by the propaganda about the magic powers of circumcision among some Ugandan men. Once circumcised, they believe they no longer need to use condoms.
The full article from Boyle and Hill (2011): "Sub-Saharan randomised clinical trials into male circumcision and HIV transmission," is available in PDF at http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23477339/1441224426/name/JLM_boyle_hill.pdf. This file has safeguards against copy-paste, or I would quote their abstract.
See also my deconstruction in detail of the insupportable Auvert et al. (2005) study that started the new wave of propaganda for foreskin removal.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/JackRiddler/1093
Here are Earp's credentials, from:
http://oxford.academia.edu/BrianEarp
Brian Earp is a Research Associate in the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and a Consultant working with the Institute for Science and Ethics at Oxford's Martin School. Brian recently completed his MSc. in experimental psychology as a Henry Fellow of New College, Oxford; and received his undergraduate degree from Yale, where he studied cognitive science and philosophy and was elected President of the Yale Philosophy Society. Serving as Editor-in-Chief of both the international Yale Philosophy Review and the Yale Review of Undergraduate Research in Psychology, Brian also conducted extensive experimental research in a number of areas, generally touching on unconscious or automatic mental processes, and has published refereed work on this topic. Brian's paper on the psychology of free will, co-authored with Professor John Bargh, was published by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and is the #2 trending philosophy paper on Academia.edu as tracked by nationalacademies.org. The #1 trending paper, "Can science tell us what's objectively true?" is Brian's as well, originally published in the graduate journal of New College, Oxford. Brian's senior thesis at Yale was awarded the Robert G. Crowder Prize from the Department of Psychology, and was recently covered in over 50 newspaper articles, from the Telegraph and Daily Mail in England to the Sydney Morning Herald and the Times of India. Brian has given interviews on his work with BBC Radio as well as Highland Radio in Ireland. A recipient of the Ledyard Cogswell award, the highest honor bestowed upon a graduating senior in Yale's Calhoun College, Brian is also a professional actor and singer, with nearly 50 leading roles to his credit, and was called "one of the most audaciously talented young actors seen on any Seattle stage in many years" by talkinbroadway.com. With Professor Julian Savulescu, Brian is authoring a book on the neuroenhancement of love and marriage, to be completed this year.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
136 replies, 21539 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (22)
ReplyReply to this post
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Most of your points could apply to anyone who takes a one-way position on something.
randome
Aug 2012
#19
Removing body parts without consent or medical necessity cannot be justified
4th law of robotics
Aug 2012
#18
This is a little early, then next circumcision thread isn't due till September 3rd--
snooper2
Aug 2012
#23
First there was a pubic hair thread, then one about small penises, and now circumcision.
madinmaryland
Aug 2012
#28
BTW, The American Academy Of Family Physicians Is About To Release A New Statement
DemocratSinceBirth
Aug 2012
#108
Earp mainly treats the findings of medical doctors "with degrees and experience in the field."
JackRiddler
Aug 2012
#135
Sigh... the numbers still don't make sense. Please address the math only for a minute.
Bonobo
Aug 2012
#41
Thanks, math was never my strong suit but I was always a decent logical thinker.
Bonobo
Aug 2012
#43
I Don't Think Anybody Is Arguing Circumcision Is A Substitute For Using A Condom
DemocratSinceBirth
Aug 2012
#114
No they don't. Until you address posts #41, #42, #43, et al, you have bombed DU with misinformation.
Bonobo
Aug 2012
#47
Circumcisions should only be performed at an Olive Garden by nursing mothers who own a pit bull.
11 Bravo
Aug 2012
#53
My "strong opinion" is that it is none of JackRiddler's business if people
apocalypsehow
Aug 2012
#73
Personal body integrity and choice are not acceptable issues to discuss here?
4th law of robotics
Aug 2012
#75
Is that your way of saying you will not address the CLEAR attempt at deception?
joeglow3
Aug 2012
#95
A testimony to how privileged living leads people to search for causes of outrage
Bonobo
Aug 2012
#106